2023/06/17

Western Sufism - Wikipedia

Western Sufism - Wikipedia

Western Sufism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Western Sufism,[1] sometimes identified with Universal SufismNeo-Sufism,[2] and Global Sufism, consists of a spectrum of Western European and North American manifestations and adaptations of Sufism, the mystical dimension of Islam.

Sufism flourished in Spain from the tenth to fifteenth centuries and spread throughout the Balkans during the Ottoman period. Enslaved Africans maintained Sufi traditions in the Americas.[3] It was not until the twentieth century, however, that Sufi organizations were established in Western Europe and North America. Inayat Khan promulgated Sufism in the United States and Europe from 1910 to 1926. In 1911 Ivan Aguéli established a Sufi society in Paris.

Inayat Khan's legacy has sometimes been associated with the neologism "Universal Sufism", though he never used the phrase.[4] Inayat Khan opened his London-based Sufi Order to people of all faiths and simultaneously founded the Anjuman-i Islam (Islamic Society) for "the furtherance of the study of Islam and unity between the Muslims and the non-Muslims in the world by discovering the universal spirit of Islam."[5] Aguéli's legacy is associated with the Traditionalism and Perennialism of his student René Guénon.[6]

History[edit]

The Legacy of Inayat Khan[edit]

The scion of a family of Indian mystics and musicians of Central Asian origin, Inayat Khan was trained and authorized in the ChishtiSuhrawardiQadiri, and Naqshbandi lineages of Sufism. The Chishti order had for centuries engaged with Hindu spiritual traditions, thus exemplifying a broader Indian cultural phenomenon popularly known as ganga-jamni tahzib.[7] In a similar fashion, Inayat Khan saw his mission as the spiritual unification of the Abrahamic (JewishChristian and Islamic) and Vedic traditions of monotheism.[8] To this end, at the request of his students, he founded The Sufi Order in London in 1918 and The Sufi Movement in Geneva in 1923.[9] At the time of his death in India in 1927, Sufi centers had been established in the United StatesEnglandFrance, the NetherlandsGermanySweden, and Switzerland.

Following the death of Inayat Khan, his brother Maheboob Khan was elected to lead his movement. On the latter's death in 1948, their cousin Mohammed Ali Khan was elected leader.[10] Inayat Khan's eldest son and Sajjadanishin Vilayat Inayat Khan deferred to Mohammed Ali Khan, but subsequently assumed his father's mantle in 1956.[11][12] His lineage, traced via his elder sister Noor Inayat Khan (d. 1944) and now represented by his eldest son and successor Zia Inayat-Khan, is known today as the Inayatiyya.[citation needed]

Mohammed Ali Khan (d. 1958) designated Maheboob Khan's son Mahmood Khan (1927-) as his successor, but the latter stood down in deference to his uncle Musharaff Khan.[13] Following Musharaff Khan's death in 1967, the Sufi Movement was led in turns by Fazal Inayat Khan (d. 1990) and Hidayat Inayat Khan (d. 2016). The current Representative General of the Sufi Movement is Nawab Pasnak.[citation needed] In 2021, students of Mahmood Khan established the International Sufi Centre 1923 as an alternative structure for members of the Sufi Movement.[citation needed]

Fazal left the Sufi Movement in 1988 and founded a new organization named The Sufi Way. Its current leader is Elias Amidon.[citation needed]

Rabia Martin (d. 1947), who served as the North American representative of the Sufi Movement in Inayat Khan's lifetime, broke away when Maheboob Khan assumed leadership. Another disciple of Inayat Khan, Samuel Lewis (Sufi Ahmed Murad Chisti, d. 1971), left with her, but subsequently broke from her when she affiliated herself with Meher Baba.[14][15][1] Rabia Martin's successor Ivy Duce went on to found an organization under the leadership of Meher Baba named Sufism Reoriented. Samuel Lewis in turn founded a California-based organization named Sufi Islamia Ruhaniat Society. Now known as Sufi Ruhaniat International, its current leader is Shabda Kahn.[citation needed]

Another organization, known as Sufi Contact, was founded by the Dutch Sufi proponent Gauri Voute. Its structure is strictly egalitarian; hence, there is no central leader.[citation needed]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b Rawlinson, Andrew (1993). "A History of Western Sufism"Diskus1 (1): 45–83.
  2. ^ Sedgwick, Mark (2016). Western Sufism: From the Abbasids to the New Age. Oxford University Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780199977659.
  3. ^ "Omar Ibn Said Collection"Library of Congress.
  4. ^ H.J. Witteveen coined the term "Universal Sufism" in his book of the same title (London: Vega, 2002).
  5. ^ "Laws of Anjuman Islam", MS in the hand of Sharifa Goodenough in the archival collection of the Nekbakht Foundation, Suresnes, France.
  6. ^ Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) and Western Sufism: From the Abbasids to the New Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).
  7. ^ See, for example, Vassie, Roderic (1992). "'Abd al-Raḥman Chishtī and the Bhagavadgita: 'Unity of Religion' Theory in Practice". In Lewisohn, Leonard (ed.). The Heritage of Sufism: The Legacy of Medieval Persian Sufism. London and New York: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi Publications. p. 367-377.
  8. ^ Inayat Khan (1928). The Unity of Religious Ideals. London: The Sufi Movement. p. 159. Cf Prince Dara Shikoh's Majma-ul-Bahrain (The Merging of Two Seas).
  9. ^ Shaikh al-Mashaik Mahmood Khan (2001). "Hazrat Inayat Khan: A Biographical Perspective". In Pirzade Zia Inayat Khan (ed.). A Pearl in Wine. New Lebanon, NY: Omega Publication. p. 267-232.
  10. ^ Karin Jironet (2009). Sufi Mysticism into the West: Life and Leadership of Hazrat Inayat Khan's Brothers 1927-1967. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
  11. ^ Zia Inayat-Khan, "A Hybrid Sufi Order at the Crossroads of Modernity", unpublished dissertation https://www.scribd.com/document/356817550/A-Hybrid-Sufi-Order-at-the-Crossroads-of-Modernity-the-Sufi-Order-and-Sufi-Movement-of-Pir-o-Murshid-Inayat-Khan)%7Cp=225-6
  12. ^ Horowitz, Mikhail (2018). Illumination: The Saga of a Spiritual Master. New Lebanon, NY: Sacred Spirit Music. p. 157.
  13. ^ Zia Inayat-Khan. A Hybrid Sufi Order" (Thesis). p. 246.
  14. ^ "On Rabia Martin and Sufism Reoriented".
  15. ^ On Samuel Lewis' dissent, see Murshid Wali Ali Meyer (2001). "A Sunrise in the West: Hazrat Inayat Khan's Legacy in California". In Pirzade Zia Inayat Khan (ed.). A Pearl in Wine. New Lebanon, NY: Omega Publications. p. 395-436.

Abu-l-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Qasi - Wikipedia

Abu-l-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Qasi - Wikipedia

Abu-l-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Qasi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Statue of Ibn Qasi in Mértola, Portugal
Silver coin issued by Hamdin and Ibn Wazir, allies of Ibn Qasi.

Abūʾl-Qāsim Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Qasī (died 1151) was Sufi, a rebel leader against the Almoravid dynasty in Al-Garb Al-Andalus and governor of Silves for the Almohads. 


The main sources for his life are Ibn al-AbbārIbn al-Khaṭīb and ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Marrakūshī. The last is the source for his biography in the biographical dictionary of al-Ṣafadī.[1]

He was of native Iberian stock, rūmī al-aṣl in the words of Ibn al-Abbār. He was born at Silves, but the date of his birth is unknown. His name sustains the possibility that he was a descendant of the Banu Qasi, that had once staged a rebellion against the Emirate of Cordoba.[2] According to Ibn al-Abbār, he was a minor government official at Silves, while Ibn al-Khaṭīb describes him as a spendthrift. He eventually sold all his goods, gave the money to the poor and became a murīd. He studied under Khalaf Allāh al-Andalusī and Ibn Khalīl in Niebla, although he may also have met Ibn al-ʿArīf in Almería. His main influences were the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (Ibn al-Abbār) and the works of al-Ghazālī (Ibn al-Khaṭīb).[1]

Far from the political quietism, asceticism, and mysticism of Ibn MasarraIbn Barrajān, and Ibn ʿArīf, was the strong esotericist revolutionary insurgent Ibn al-Qaṣī. His murīdūn revolt was able to capture, and create a city state (ṭāʾifa) in Silves. Even before his political uprising, he was known by the state-jurist establishment for sowering corruption, possessing the minds of the ignorant, claiming sainthood, the titles of Imām, and Mahdī all in effort against the state.

Ibn al-Qaṣī would later join the Almohads in conquering Andalus, only to later rebel against them with the help of the Christian King of Portugal, Alfonso Henrique, which caused his own followers to behead Ibn al-Qaṣī (d. 1151), shoving his head on the very lance given to him by Henrique. Ibn al-Qaṣī is most known for his treatise Discarding the Two Shoes and Borrowing Light from the Site of the Two Feet (Khalʿ al-naʿlayn wa iʾtibās al-nūr min mawḍiʿ al-qadamayn), which is influenced by Masarrian thought, amongst other undercurrents in Andalusia. Shaykh al-Akbar became familiar with this text, when he met Ibn al-Qaṣīʾs son in Tunis 1194. Ibn ʿArabī would later write a commentary (sharḥ) on the text pejoratively referring to Ibn al-Qaṣī as a blind follower (muqallid), an ignoramus (jāhil), an impostor, and nothing more than a transmitter of texts (nāqil); Ibn ʿArabī then goes on to elaborate on how Ibn al-Qaṣī was just parroting one of his teachers, Khalaf-Allāh, and that Ibn al-Qaṣī was not a muḥaqqiq, but rather an ignoramus. Although, Ibn ʿArabī did recognize him as a person of unveiling (kashf).

— Hamza A. Dudgeon, "The Counter-Current Movements of Andalusia and Ibn ʿArabī: Should Ibn ʿArabī be considered a Ẓāhirī"The Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society Vol.64 (2018): 89-108.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b Goodrich, 16–27.
  2. ^ William Elliot: The Career of In Qasi as Religious Teacher and Political Revolutionary in 12th Century Islamic Spain, University of Edinburgh, 1979 p.39

References[edit]

  • Viguera, María Jesús; Los reinos de Taifas. 2007. RBA Coleccionables. ISBN 84-473-4815-6
  • J. Dreher, ed. and tr., Ibn Qasi, Abu l-Qasim Ahmad b. al-Husayn: Kitab Khal al-Na'Layn wa-Iqtibas al-Anwar min Mawdi al-Qadamayn (Das Imamat des islamischen Mystikers, Abulqasim Ahmad Ibn al-Husain Ibn Qasi: Eine Sudie zum Selbstverständnis des Autors des Buch vom Ausziehen der beiden Sandalen) Bonn, 1985
  • J. Dreher, "L'Imamat d'Ibn Qasi à Mertola (Automne 1144-été 1145); Légitimité d'Une Domination Soufie?", MIDEO 18 (1988), pp. 195–210
  • D. R. Goodrich, dissertation, A Sufi Revolt in Portugal: Ibn Qasi and his Kitab khal'al-na'layn, Columbia University, PH D. 1978
  • Nagendra Kr Singh, International encyclopaedia of Islamic dynasties, p. 34 [1] (retrieved 1-12-2010)
  • William Elliot, The Career of In Qasi as Religious Teacher and Political Revolutionary in 12th Century Islamic Spain, thesis submitted to University of Edinburgh, 1979.

Taechang Kim David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been

Facebook



Taechang Kim
oserStdopn88mh3i79288tu07h9gi01i540t295170u3c1f67f7l04347u0u ·




Taechang Kim
所謂 '反出生主義' (生まれてこないほうが良かったという考え方)を '反誕生主義' と
'反出産主義' という二つの側面から深思熟慮し、従来の生の哲学(Lebensphilosophie) とは
違う、新たな意味と問題意識を込めた <生命哲学>を
整理提示した. 反出生主義を乗り越える道開きを示した.



Takehisa Zuikou Hase ·
Follow


私の出身大学の先生もベネターの翻訳を出しておられますが、ベネターはどうやら、「苦痛」を緩和すべきというようなことを述べておられるようですね。個人的には、分析哲学的手法がもたらす、一見すると普遍的に見えますが、実は、ここでは人間像が画一化されて捉えられていて、一般化された視点から、人間存在をまりに単純化しているような、不満が残ります。また仏教との類似性も指摘される反出生主義ですが、アフリカ発というローカルな問題提起の重要性は見逃せないでしょうけれども、でも例えば、対ドイツ・レジスタンスの意識も手伝って、さらにユダヤ系心理学者フロイトの理論も意識したであろう、サルトルの『存在と無』における、サディズムやマゾヒズムの分析などを想起すると、この人新世を意識する時代に、これから我々は何を考えるのでしょうか? 

Taechang Kim

長谷 武久様のご意見に敬意を払います. わたくし自身は
19世紀のポーランド出身ドイツ人哲学者アルテイウル-ショーペンハウワや20世紀のルーマニア人哲学者エミール-ミハイル-シオラン、そして21世紀の南アフリカ出身の哲学者デイヴィビッド-ベナターなどの所謂 '誕生害悪論' との対比で
日本人哲学者森岡正博の新たな<生命の哲学>にこめられた
生命開新美学的観点と立場からの共感共鳴を顕にしたいのです.

Taechang Kim
·
わたくし自身が "生きている" ということは先ず、わたくし自身が "生きていることを知っている"ということである.
<生知一如>である.
韓国語の "サラム" (사람=ヒト-人-人間) は "サルム" (삶=生-生活-暮らし) と
"アルム" (앎=知-認識-体得) の合成語でその語源的意味は
まさに、"生きていることを知っているもの" 即ち "知生人" (homo sapiens)である.








Taechang Kim

Tim Ingold
《BEING ALIVE: Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description》
(Routledge, 2011)の日本語訳本. 生とか生命とは何であるかという問題よりは "生きているということ" は一体どういうことなのかという問題の方に関心を焦点化した英国人人類学者のユニークな力作.

Taechang Kim
·
今われわれに必要なのは、地球政治神学よりは、地球恩恵倫理学ではないか?
何日間、寝食まで忘れて日本内外の関連文献を渉猟して見て改めて体感したことは、人類を含め地球上のすべての存在の相恩互恵関係のなかでの感恩-知恩-
報恩の倫理を地球市民意識涵養の基本とする必要があり、それこそが地球と人類が抱えている巨大複合危機事態への最適緊急対応ではないか、というきがする.


Yoshihisa Takahashi

〈何日間、寝食まで忘れて〉:敬服、称賛しますとともに、お疲れを案じますので、御身ご大切に。

Taechang Kim

高橋 良久 ご配慮ありがとうございます. 何しろわたくし自身にとっては、どうでもよい問題ではありませんので、ある程度展望が開新するまでは緊張解消が続くわけですからどうしようもなかったのです.

Reply
See translation

===

데이비드 베네이타  위키백과

David Benatar
출생 1966년 12월 8일(56세)
성별 남성
국적 남아프리카 공화국
경력 반출생주의
직업 학자, 교수, 작가
학문적 배경
학력 케이프타운 대학교 (BSocSc, PhD)
학문적 활동
분야 철학
하위 분야 도덕 철학, 사회 철학, 종교 철학
소속 기관 케이프타운 대학교
주요 개념 Asymmetry between pain and pleasure
데이비드 베네이타(영어: David Benatar, 1966년 ~ )는 남아프리카 공화국의 철학자다. 케이프타운 대학교의 철학 교수이자 철학과 학과장을 역임한 그는 자신이 저술한 《태어나지 않는 것이 낫다 - 존재하게 되는 것의 해악(better never to have been, 2006)》에서 반출생주의의 논거를 정리하였다. 그의 주장에 따르면 태어나게 되는 것은 해악이며 따라서 출산 등 의식적인 존재를 만드는 것은 도덕적으로 잘못된 행위이다.[1]

생애
케이프타운 대학교에서 생명 윤리 센터를 설립한 건강 전문가인 솔로몬 베네이타(Solomon Benatar)의 아들로 태어났다. 그는 사생활 보호에 철저해서 개인적인 삶에 대해서는 알려진 바가 거의 없다. 그는 어린 시절부터 반출생주의적 견해를 가졌다.[2]

각주
 Steyn, Mark (2007년 12월 14일). “Children? Not if you love the planet”. 《Orange County Register》. 2008년 4월 16일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2008년 4월 29일에 확인함.
 Rothman, Joshua (2017년 11월 27일). “The Case for Not Being Born”. 《The New Yorker》.
===
외부 링크
 위키인용집에 David Benatar 관련 문서가 있습니다.

====
Friday, December 14, 2007
Mark Steyn: Children? Not if you love the planet
By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
----
This is the time of year, as Hillary Rodham Clinton once put it, when Christians celebrate "the birth of a homeless child" – or, in Al Gore's words, "a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child."

Just for the record, Jesus wasn't "homeless." He had a perfectly nice home back in Nazareth. But he happened to be born in Bethlehem. It was census time, and Joseph was obliged to schlep halfway across the country to register in the town of his birth. Which is such an absurdly bureaucratic overregulatory cockamamie Big Government nightmare that it's surely only a matter of time before Massachusetts or California reintroduce it.

But the point is: The Christmas story isn't about affordable housing. Joseph and Mary couldn't get a hotel room – that's the only accommodation aspect of the event. Sen. Clinton and Vice President Gore are overcomplicating things: Dec. 25 is not the celebration of "a homeless child," but a child, period.

Just for a moment, let us accept, as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the other bestselling atheists insist, that what happened in Bethlehem two millennia is a lot of mumbo-jumbo. As I wrote a year ago, consider it not as an event but as a narrative: You want to launch a big new global movement from scratch. So what do you use?

The birth of a child. On the one hand, what could be more powerless than a newborn babe? On the other, without a newborn babe, man is ultimately powerless. For, without new life, there can be no civilization, no society, no nothing. Even if it's superstitious mumbo-jumbo, the decision to root Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth expresses a profound – and rational – truth about "eternal life" here on Earth.

Last year I wrote a book on demographic decline and became a big demography bore, and it's tempting just to do an annual December audit on the demographic weakness of what we used to call Christendom. Today, in the corporate headquarters of the Christian faith, Pope Benedict looks out of his window at a city where children's voices are rarer and rarer. Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. Go to a big rural family wedding: lots of aunts, uncles, grandmas, grandpas but ever fewer bambinos. The International Herald Tribune last week carried the latest update on the remorseless geriatrification: On the Miss Italia beauty pageant, the median age of the co-hosts was 70; the country is second only to Sweden in the proportion of its population over 85, and has the fewest citizens under 15. Etc.

So in post-Catholic Italy there is no miracle of a child this Christmas – unless you count the 70 percent of Italians between the ages of 20 and 30 who still live at home, the world's oldest teenagers still trudging up the stairs to the room they slept in as a child even as they approach their fourth decade. That's worth bearing in mind if you're an American gal heading to Rome on vacation: When that cool 29-year-old with the Mediterranean charm in the singles bar asks you back to his pad for a nightcap, it'll be his mom and dad's place.

I'm often told that my demographics-is-destiny argument is anachronistic: Countries needed manpower in the Industrial Age, when we worked in mills and factories. But now advanced societies are "knowledge economies," and they require fewer working stiffs. Oddly enough, the Lisbon Council's European Human Capital Index, released in October, thinks precisely the opposite – that the calamitous decline in population will prevent Eastern and Central Europe from being able to function as "innovation economies." A "knowledge economy" will be as smart as the brains it can call on.

Meanwhile, a few Europeans are still having children: The British government just announced that Muhammad is now the most popular boy's name in the United Kingdom.

As I say, the above demographic audit has become something of an annual tradition in this space. But here's something new that took hold in the year 2007: A radical antihumanism, long present just below the surface, bobbed up and became explicit and respectable. In Britain, the Optimum Population Trust said that "the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers – in other words, human beings," and professor John Guillebaud called on Britons to voluntarily reduce the number of children they have.

Last week, in the Medical Journal of Australia, Barry Walters went further: To hell with this wimp-o pantywaist "voluntary" child-reduction. Professor Walters wants a "carbon tax" on babies, with, conversely, "carbon credits" for those who undergo sterilization procedures. So that'd be great news for the female eco-activists recently profiled in London's Daily Mail who boast about how they'd had their tubes tied and babies aborted in order to save the planet. "Every person who is born," says Toni Vernelli, "produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases and adds to the problem of overpopulation." We are the pollution, and sterilization is the solution. The best way to bequeath a more sustainable environment to our children is not to have any.

What's the "pro-choice" line? "Every child should be wanted"? Not anymore. The progressive position has subtly evolved: Every child should be unwanted.

By the way, if you're looking for some last-minute stocking stuffers, Oxford University Press has published a book by professor David Benatar of the University of Cape Town called "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence." The author "argues for the 'anti-natal' view – that it is always wrong to have children … . Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct." As does Alan Weisman's "The World Without Us" – which Publishers Weekly hails as "an enthralling tour of the world … anticipating, often poetically, what a planet without us would be like." It's a good thing it "anticipates" it poetically, because, once it happens, there will be no more poetry.

Lest you think the above are "extremists," consider how deeply invested the "mainstream" is in a total fiction. At the recent climate jamboree in Bali, the Rev. Al Gore told the assembled faithful: "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here." Really? The American Thinker's Web site ran the numbers. In the seven years between the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here's what happened:

•Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;

•Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;

•Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and

•Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.

It's hard not to conclude a form of mental illness has gripped the world's elites. If you're one of that dwindling band of Westerners who'll be celebrating the birth of a child, "homeless" or otherwise, next week, make the most of it. A year or two on, and the eco-professors will propose banning Nativity scenes because they set a bad example.

===



===


===

The whole point of Christianity is to create a deeper form of humanism | Giles Fraser | The Guardian

The whole point of Christianity is to create a deeper form of humanism | Giles Fraser | The Guardian



The whole point of Christianity is to create a deeper form of humanism
This article is more than 8 years old
Giles Fraser


It seems that making the human stand out as morally particular requires some sort of leap of faith
Sat 6 Dec 2014

Christians make better humanists. That could be the top line of a report just out from the thinktank Theos. And I suspect the timing – just in time for Christmas – is no coincidence. After all, the story of God becoming a human being is one of the deep wellsprings of European humanism. Instead of presenting us with a booming voice from the mountain top, or some universal expression of cosmic power, Christmas Christianity insists that fully to imagine God is to imagine a human child – little, weak and helpless.

Two thousand years later, when all the misleading tinsel has been pushed aside, it remains a shockingly subversive message. God is not to be discovered beyond Orion’s belt but down on Earth. Early cosmologists looked into the sky for clues to the whereabouts of God, but, incomprehensibly to them, the stars led towards a random shed on the back streets of a small town in the Middle East. From then on, think of God, think of a crying infant. Not a superhuman force, not even a human being enhanced by superhero-like powers, but a gurgling, pink and fleshy homo sapiens. It is the ultimate humanist narrative. Surely no abstract and intellectual deconstruction of divine power can possibly compete with the seditious thought of the need to change God’s nappy. It’s little wonder that many accused early Christianity of atheism.

It is true – and much to be regretted – that Christians have not always been convincing humanists. The catalogue of woe is long and depressingly familiar, from the way Christians have treated slaves, people of other faiths, women and homosexuals. In too many cases, religion has stood over and against human flourishing. Loyalty to God has meant disloyalty to being human. In such an ideology, it makes little difference whether or not human beings flourish as a consequence of faith: if God orders it, we must obey. Well, if that’s the choice, count me out of the whole religion thing.

But, properly understood, these denigrations of the human should be just as much an affront to Christian values. “I have come that they may have life and have it to the full” is how Jesus expresses his mission in St John’s gospel. “The glory of God is a human being fully alive,” wrote Irenaeus in the second century. In other words, the point of Christianity is to generate a deeper form of humanism.

Indeed, the fascinating question posed by Theos is whether an entirely atheistic form of humanism has the resources to sustain itself. If the foundational story of human origins is not that we are chosen by God but that we are descended from apes, what is it that makes human beings morally distinctive? Yes, of course I think Darwin was correct scientifically – but, as a story of human origins, evolution hardly encourages us to think of human beings as being unique as a species. Indeed, Darwin’s point is precisely the opposite. So how does humanism generate a sense of the human as being uniquely valuable? Some may say because we are rational. But are rational people more morally valuable than irrational ones? Surely not. No, it seems that making the human stand out as morally particular requires some sort of leap of faith.

That’s why some of the most ardent atheists have rejected humanism altogether. For instance, the 19th-century French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon insisted that “humanism is a religion as detestable as any of the theisms of ancient origin” and that it was necessary to reject humanism because it tended “invincibly, by the deification of humanity, to a religious restoration”. And I kind of agree with him. Humanism sits more comfortably with religion than with atheism.

Perhaps this is why atheists are not always at the forefront of defending human life when it comes up against other values such as choice. In a whole range of debates from abortion to assisted dying, the moral category of choice is often regarded as trumping the moral category of humanity. And it is surely problematic to call this humanism – if by humanism we mean that the human is something morally superior to all other categories. Which is why many of us find a more robust form of humanism at the side of a 2,000-year-old crib.

@giles_fraser