Thoughts on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Conversion to Christianity

It's no small thing when a central figure of the New Atheist movement embraces religion. As far as I'm aware, such has never happened until today. As many of you may already know, Christianity has gained the fellowship of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim turned atheist activist. In a short article published on the alternative blog UnHerd, Ali announced her conversion citing a lack of spiritual meaning in her life and the need for a strong, robust worldview to combat both Islamism and incipient woke ideology.

As expected in this current phase of the culture war, there has been considerable backlash against Ali's decision from her former compatriots of scepticism. Atheist activists Matt Dillahunty and Aron Ra took to X to criticise Ali's decision with posts that have garnered hundreds of likes and many retweets with concurring sentiments. They attacked her on the grounds that she did not provide any evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity in her article and that the only grounds for conversion should be the demonstration of said truthfulness (see the posts here and here). 

There is much I want to say about both Dillahunty and Ra's reactionary responses to Ali's decision. As if a short blog highlighting the political dimensions of a personal life choice should (or even could) contain a comprehensive evidential case as to why Christian religion is true. It seems that even after decades of interacting with religious people these atheists have failed to understand that people have natural, inbuilt existential needs and are rarely ever "reasoned" into religion. Even if they are, it is unreasonable to expect a robust articulation of faith from a fledgling believer: converts seldom ever have a full theology or worldview built at the point of conversion. It doesn’t justify unwarranted belief on behalf of these individuals, but they should at least understand why these things happen.

What's more, there has to be a case for the initial claim that conversion should only ever occur as a result of a religion's truthfulness being demonstrated; Dillahunty and Ra present it is some kind of moral ought which they themselves have not demonstrated. Looks like Ali has found herself targeted by yet another religion. The inquisitors of toxic atheism have found their witch to burn!

Derek's Dilemma

Notwithstanding the New Atheist drivel that we've become accustom to over the years, there has been more substantial engagement with Ali's announcement elsewhere. Strikingly, it has been Derek Lambert from the MythVision podcast who has provided some thought-provoking takes on Ali's conversion in this recent video. For the uninitiated, Lambert is big on ancient Graeco-Roman and Near-Eastern parallels to the biblical metanarrative: this or that feature is found in all these other cults and movements of the ancient world, thus Christianity is no different. This has been his shtick for the last several years.

Lambert suggests that Ali has buckled under the the weight of a perceived approaching western collapse in the face of woke ideology; that the recent events in Israel—after which so many rational left-wing people have refused to condemn the massacres of October 7th—have pushed her over the edge. In Lambert's analysis of the situation, Ali not only wishes to get away from Islam but away from the many leftist westerners who have found themselves incapable of condemning Hamas and are allegedly in cahoots with the Islamists she sought to escape from. It was the western world that gave her refuge from the very ideas that, in her mind, are now seeping into western countries. Ali has thus been granted asylum once again, this time with Christianity.

Lambert appreciates the power of a unifying narrative, but criticises Ali's implicit insistence that this narrative must be Christianity. He instead asks for a more realistic narrative based upon scholarly research and modern knowledge. Instead of falling back onto old narratives like Christianity, Lambert asks why we cannot develop a new idea to combat the rise of harmful ideologies that Ali has come to fear and flee from. Given that Christianity has borrowed some (or many) of its ideas from its Hellenistic setting, why can we not do the same to create a new unifying myth? Why does one have to embrace specifically Christianity in order to push back against Islamism or woke ideology? Why can we not instead appreciate the legacy and tradition that Christian religion has left behind for us to build something new? 

Lambert's perspectives have always been a mixed bag to me (I will have to dedicate an entire post outlining my gripes with his approach). Like most cases of his commentary, his perspective is charged with an anti-religious rhetoric that even I, as a secular, find disconcerting. Nevertheless, I think he might be onto something here. The power of narratives can bring people together but can also rip them apart. Lambert understands this and attacks Ali's decision on the grounds that Christianity is simply not the necessary solution to a problem that he agrees exists. 

That being said, Lambert's position should be taken with a microbe of salt. He admits in his video that he had never even heard of Ali prior to this controversy, his eyes darting back and forth to his second screen to remind himself of how to even pronounce her name. It is ill-judged (and, quite frankly, rude) for Lambert to psychoanalyse someone who wasn't even a blip in his mind this time last week. Yet he thinks that he is privy to the inner workings of her mind? Look, if Lambert is right about Ali's reasons for converting then so be it. But if he is wrong, he is blindingly, arrogantly, and offensively wrong.

Just Pragmatism?

I have my own take on Ali's decision. Her atheist detractors are at least partially correct that there needs to be some kind of evidential basis for belief, especially with a religion that has a rich intellectual history like Christianity. Christian apologists like Erik Manning from Testify have pointed out that belief in the risen Christ is a bedrock factor of Christianity, even for long extinct Christianities that diverge from the orthodox beliefs. If it was purely a decision made in defence of our much-coveted western values, Ali's actual worldview becomes one of empty pragmatism that has nothing to do with God, Jesus, or the Bible. It's something to tick off the literalists, but will nevertheless raise the eyebrows of ordinary believers who are supposedly now her brothers and sisters in Christ.

Additionally, there are many people who proudly wear the moniker of "Christian" yet would still come under the category of "woke" that Ali is attempting to push back against. The diversity of modern Christianity raises questions regarding what the "natural" politic of Christianity is and what political perspectives are expected to emerge from one's personal faith. It also begs the question concerning what kind of Christianity Ali has actually converted to. Does she even understand the vast ocean of denominational differences? A personal confession of faith will not stop a care-free, liberal Christianity from aiding the downfall of the traditional western values that Ali has come to appreciate. 

The above crises present the need for Ali to engage in hermeneutics of the original text of Christianity. It is from the collection of biblical books that the political vantages and personal values of the religion have emerged. This requires engaging in the sort of things that Lambert has spent the last half a decade swimming in. Ali needs to demonstrate that Christianity actually teaches the politic that she is looking for, instead of just being a homage to colloquial stereotypes about "muh' traditional values." Now, perhaps she has looked into these kinds of things. And until we know otherwise we must therefore reserve a certain amount of judgement.

This does not, of course, mean that Ali's decision is beyond criticism. Especially as a public figure and globally recognised activist, her commitment to a new belief system is the business of everyone who interacts with and is influenced by her material: every claim she makes, every book she writes, it is all paraded for public scrutiny. I find that Jordan Peterson's Christianity serves the same purpose: a political tool, a pragmatic moral safety net and, ultimately, a means to an end. Now I understand why Manning is somewhat irritated by Ali's decision.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an author I have not engaged with much so I share in Lambert's ignorance. That ignorance must restrain both of us before we make any sweeping statements of condemnation or commendation. This also goes for the apologists who are celebrating her conversion. Can't you all just wait and see how it pans out? All being said, I don't think Ali would make this decision, let alone announce it to the world with such confidence, without having some reasons to justify it. And, contrary to Dillahunty and Ra, they aren't always scientific, historical, or philosophical reasons.