|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Introduction by Paula White:
We are standing in one of the most urgent and prophetic moments in our lifetime. The foundations of faith, family, and freedom are being shaken—and the question echoing across the earth is this: Can a civilization survive if it forgets its God?
That’s why we’ve gathered today—not for a political debate, but for a spiritual reckoning. You’re going to hear from powerful voices: bold thinkers like Dr. Jordan Peterson, brilliant scholars like Zena Hitz, courageous defenders of truth like Charlie Kirk—a man I call one of the strongest Christian voices of this generation—and even from those who have wrestled with doubt and disbelief.
We’re not afraid of the hard questions: What is good? What is evil? What happens when God is removed from culture? And can there be meaning—real, soul-deep meaning—without the presence of a Creator?
So open your heart, open your mind, and lean in. Because this is more than a conversation. This is a call to awaken. To return. To rebuild. And to believe that with God, the West is not finished—it’s just getting started.
(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.)
Topic 1: Can Meaning Survive Without God?
Moderator: Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt:
Let’s begin with the most basic question: Does belief in God matter for living a meaningful life—or can meaning truly survive without it? I’d like to hear where each of you stands.
Charlie Kirk:
Meaning absolutely depends on God. Without God, we are just atoms and impulses pretending to matter. If we’re honest, atheism leads to nihilism or moral relativism.
When I say God, I mean the God of the Bible—the Creator who gives every life intrinsic value. That’s not a poetic idea. That’s a foundation. Strip it away, and you’re left with nothing but distraction and despair.
Sam Harris:
Charlie, I disagree entirely. We don’t need myths to find meaning. Love, creativity, exploration—these are deeply meaningful, and none require a divine being.
You can build a meaningful life by reducing suffering, cultivating wisdom, and connecting deeply with others. These are human values, not borrowed from the sky. God may be comforting, but comfort isn’t the same as truth.
Zena Hitz:
I think both of you are right in different ways. We can experience love and purpose in secular contexts. But I’ve also seen how the religious imagination sustains meaning through pain—especially when reason fails.
Faith, in my view, isn’t superstition. It’s a language for mystery, sacrifice, and hope. You can live meaningfully without it, but you may lack the spiritual endurance faith offers in tragedy.
Jordan Peterson:
Meaning isn’t optional. It structures our perception and justifies our suffering. You can’t live without it, and if you don’t choose a meaning, one will be imposed on you—usually by ideology.
I see belief in God as an archetypal alignment with the highest possible good. Even if you don’t “believe” in the traditional sense, if you act toward the highest ideal, you're religious in practice. And if you don’t—chaos follows.
Douglas Murray:
I’m not a believer, but I’m haunted by God. I see the crisis we’re facing in the West—loneliness, depression, confusion—and I can’t help but notice that it coincides with a decline in religious faith.
Can secularism sustain meaning? Perhaps for individuals. But for civilizations? I’m skeptical. We may be living off the fumes of Christian ethics without realizing the tank is emptying.
Jonathan Haidt:
Thank you. Let’s now go deeper. If God disappears from public belief, what replaces Him as the source of purpose—if anything?
Zena Hitz:
Often, ideology fills the void. You see this in politics today—left and right. People hunger for transcendence, and if they can’t find it in church, they’ll find it in movements, identity, or outrage.
But ideology punishes; it doesn’t forgive. That’s the difference. True meaning requires not just justice, but mercy. I’ve only seen that held together in the religious tradition.
Sam Harris:
What replaces God? Hopefully—a more honest conversation. We can talk about purpose in terms of human flourishing, neuroscience, and ethics.
The sacred doesn’t have to be supernatural. Meditation, psychedelics, deep love—they all deliver transcendent experiences. We can be reverent without being irrational.
Charlie Kirk:
That’s where I push back. Meditation and drugs don’t replace God. They’re spiritual band-aids. Real purpose comes from knowing who made you and why.
And I’ll say this: if we remove God from the public square, we don’t become neutral. We become godless. That vacuum gets filled with things that enslave us—consumerism, authoritarianism, chaos.
Douglas Murray:
We haven’t found a satisfying replacement. That’s clear. We have endless entertainment but little joy. We have freedom but no direction.
I worry that secular meaning is too fragile. It works when things go well. But when a child dies, or a marriage fails, or you face your own mortality—what does humanism say? Often, nothing.
Jordan Peterson:
Meaning without God becomes self-serving. You pursue “what makes you happy,” but life isn’t designed to keep you happy. It’s designed to test you.
God, rightly understood, isn’t an old man in the sky. He’s the structure of Being itself—the Good toward which we strive. Abandon that, and you fall into hedonism or despair.
Jonathan Haidt:
Final question. Is it dangerous to detach meaning from God—or is that just inevitable in modernity?
Charlie Kirk:
It’s not just dangerous—it’s deadly. Look at rising suicide rates, gender confusion, school shootings. These are symptoms of a culture that has forgotten God.
People are not just hungry—they’re starving for truth. The church isn’t optional. It’s a lifeline.
Sam Harris:
Correlation is not causation. Religion hasn’t prevented suffering either. Let’s not romanticize the past.
We should aim for meaning rooted in reality—not mythology. That means developing secular institutions that promote depth, service, and resilience. It’s harder, yes. But it’s honest.
Douglas Murray:
But what if the myths were the scaffolding we didn’t know we needed?
We’ve tried replacing the cathedral with wellness apps and therapy culture. I’m not sure it’s working. There’s something timeless in the religious frame that I fear we’re losing—and once lost, it may not come back.
Zena Hitz:
I think we’re in a spiritual adolescence. We want freedom without form. But the deepest lives I’ve encountered—religious or not—tether themselves to something beyond ego.
God, at minimum, is a way of pointing beyond the self. We can’t build lasting meaning if we remain the center.
Jordan Peterson:
Well said. You can’t be the author and the judge. You must serve something higher than yourself—or you’ll serve yourself poorly.
Meaning without God? It may survive—but not forever.
Jonathan Haidt:
Thank you, everyone. That was honest, wide-ranging, and deeply needed.
Topic 2: Is Christian Morality Unique—or Just a Cultural Expression of Universal Ethics?
Moderator: Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt:
Let’s begin with this foundational question: Are the moral values we uphold in the West—compassion, human rights, justice—uniquely Christian, or are they universal principles that predate or transcend Christianity?
Charlie Kirk:
There’s no question they’re Christian. The idea that every human being has inherent worth? That’s Imago Dei—the belief that we’re made in God’s image. Before Christ, might made right. After Christ, the meek inherited moral authority.
Atheists can act morally, sure—but the framework they’re using is borrowed. Western morality is not a floating idea. It’s rooted in Scripture, in the Cross, in the teachings of Jesus.
Rebecca Goldstein:
I’d strongly challenge that. Compassion isn’t a Christian invention. It appears in Buddhism, Confucianism, and pre-Christian Stoicism. We see reciprocal ethics in ancient tribal societies as well.
Christianity consolidated and spread some of those values, yes—but it didn’t originate them. Morality is a human inheritance. Religion simply gave it narrative form.
Jordan Peterson:
But form matters. A value without a story is like a seed without soil. Christianity took abstract moral impulses—like love, sacrifice, dignity—and embedded them in narrative, ritual, and symbol.
The West isn’t moral despite Christianity. It’s moral because of the way Christianity dramatized those values across generations. Without the story, the values drift.
Sam Harris:
I think we give Christianity too much credit. It promoted moral ideas, yes—but it also delayed progress. Slavery, witch trials, the subjugation of women—all justified using the same Scriptures people now use to defend compassion.
Our moral progress happened in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Enlightenment values—reason, human rights, science—challenged and corrected religious dogma.
Douglas Murray:
There’s some truth on both sides. It’s undeniable that Christianity shaped the West's moral imagination. But we’re also discovering how fragile those moral intuitions are when cut off from their roots.
Secular societies assume the dignity of the individual. But why? On what basis? Remove the transcendent, and dignity becomes sentiment. And sentiment, we know, is unreliable.
Jonathan Haidt:
Let’s move to the next layer. If Christian morality did shape the West, can that moral system survive now that belief is in decline? Or will it fade too?
Sam Harris:
It can survive—if we build better institutions. We don’t need belief in supernatural beings to practice kindness, fairness, or empathy. In fact, removing dogma allows those values to breathe and adapt.
We need to train people in moral reasoning, not religious obedience. That’s the path forward.
Charlie Kirk:
But secular systems can’t generate moral force. They may teach manners, but they can’t form conscience. Without God, there’s no why behind right and wrong—only personal preference or state enforcement.
That’s not morality. That’s utility in disguise. The moment it becomes inconvenient, it collapses.
Rebecca Goldstein:
Morality can survive without God because it evolves. It’s responsive. We develop empathy through experience, through literature, through seeing others as selves.
Religion isn’t the only way to cultivate depth. Philosophy, science, and secular education can shape moral citizens too—arguably with fewer historical cruelties.
Jordan Peterson:
You need a shared mythos, though. Moral reason alone doesn’t bind tribes or nations. Christianity unified millions under a common story of love, sacrifice, and redemption.
Take that away, and you get fragmentation—each person with their own “truth.” That’s not moral progress. That’s the end of shared civilization.
Douglas Murray:
This is the real risk. We assume our values will linger just because they feel obvious. But history doesn’t guarantee moral continuity. Civilizations forget.
Christianity may not be the only source—but it was the strongest anchor the West ever had. We should think carefully before we let go entirely.
Jonathan Haidt:
Final question. Do secular systems offer a credible alternative to Christian morality—or are they unknowingly standing on Christian foundations?
Rebecca Goldstein:
They’re standing on human foundations. Christian morality is one rich expression of a deeper current—human beings striving to live well together.
Secular systems don’t replace religion. They refine it. They build on it. And they invite participation without requiring belief in things unseen.
Charlie Kirk:
No—secular systems are hollow without God. They use Christian vocabulary without Christian structure. It’s like having laws without lawmakers.
You might coast on that for a generation or two, but eventually the wheels fall off. And when crisis comes, slogans won’t save you.
Sam Harris:
I think that's fear talking. Humanity is evolving past superstition. We don’t need to keep old scaffolding when we’re building new bridges.
People are already finding meaning through ethics, mindfulness, social good—without metaphysical baggage. Let’s encourage that instead of mourning the past.
Jordan Peterson:
But don’t forget: meaning isn’t just found—it’s earned. Christianity didn’t just give people ideals. It gave them a structure to suffer well, to aim high, to confess, to forgive.
Can secular systems provide that? Maybe. But so far, they’ve produced a lot of therapy—and not a lot of transformation.
Douglas Murray:
If the West loses Christianity entirely, we may rediscover it—not out of nostalgia, but necessity. We may find that to stand firm, you need more than reason. You need reverence.
Jonathan Haidt:
A spirited discussion. Thank you all for wrestling with the depth of this question with such clarity and honesty.
Topic 3: The Sacred and the Self — Does Transcendence Require a God?
Moderator: Iain McGilchrist
Iain McGilchrist:
Let’s begin with a core inquiry: What is “the sacred,” and does it require belief in God to be meaningful, real, or transformative?
Charlie Kirk:
The sacred is inseparable from God. You can’t have transcendence without the transcendent. When people say they feel awe at a sunset or during meditation, they’re tapping into the divine—whether they admit it or not.
God isn’t just a feeling. He’s a person, a truth, a moral authority. Strip Him out, and “the sacred” becomes a hollow emotional experience—brief and meaningless.
Susan Blackmore:
Actually, Charlie, the sacred can be very real without any belief in God. As a Zen practitioner and consciousness researcher, I’ve had profound experiences of silence, awe, and unity.
But these don’t point to a divine being. They come from letting go of the self—the illusion of control, ego, and permanence. The sacred is not someone watching over us. It’s what remains when “we” disappear.
Jordan Peterson:
I think both of you are circling something deep. The sacred is what organizes chaos into meaning. It’s what elevates the ordinary into the archetypal.
Whether or not you believe in a literal God, when you kneel before the sacred—before beauty, love, truth—you are submitting to a reality greater than yourself. And that gesture is religious in nature, even if it isn’t named.
Alain de Botton:
I’d suggest the sacred is more cultural than metaphysical. It’s how we honor what we don’t want to trample: a cathedral, a funeral, the dignity of a child.
We need rituals, symbols, and reverence—but not necessarily supernaturalism. You don’t have to believe in angels to find a moment holy. You just have to treat it as if it matters beyond utility.
Zena Hitz:
To me, the sacred is where the soul meets reality with humility. It can come through a hymn or a moment of silence. It’s about attention, awe, and the willingness to be changed.
God gives those experiences context—a “listener” behind the beauty, a “judge” behind the moral impulse. But even those outside of religion can feel it. The question is: what do you do with it?
Iain McGilchrist:
Let’s follow that thread. If someone has a sacred experience—beauty, awe, loss, silence—what does it ask of them? Is there any obligation or transformation involved?
Jordan Peterson:
Absolutely. The sacred isn’t a mood—it’s a call. When Moses saw the burning bush, he wasn’t told to admire it. He was told to act.
The sacred demands we align our behavior with something higher. It insists that we sacrifice lesser things to serve the greater good. Without that demand, you’re not encountering the sacred—you’re enjoying a sensation.
Susan Blackmore:
Or maybe you’re simply observing. In Zen, there’s no “demand” other than presence. The sacred asks you to notice, not obey.
We can be transformed by silence, but that doesn’t mean it came from a divine command. It means the illusion of the self dropped away for a moment—and with it, fear, grasping, judgment.
Charlie Kirk:
But sacredness without authority is just aestheticism. It makes no moral claim, no personal demand, no eternal consequence.
God doesn’t just inspire awe. He commands righteousness. When you feel the sacred, you’re not just moved—you’re accountable. That’s the difference between God and a sunset.
Alain de Botton:
That’s where I’d argue back. Accountability can exist without divine surveillance. We can build institutions—ethical schools, moral philosophies—that train people to be better.
The sacred, for me, is what softens the ego. If you leave a moment more humble, more curious, more generous—that’s enough.
Zena Hitz:
Still, there’s a danger in reducing the sacred to sentiment. Without a framework, sacred moments are like sparks in a dark room—brief, isolated, quickly forgotten.
Religious tradition carries those sparks into fire—into memory, community, action. You don’t need to believe in every doctrine, but if you treat the sacred casually, you lose its power.
Iain McGilchrist:
Final question. If we lose the language of the sacred altogether—as modern secular cultures often do—what is lost? Can society endure without it?
Charlie Kirk:
We lose reverence. We lose boundaries. And we lose God.
When everything is flattened—when nothing is sacred—anything becomes permissible. That leads to confusion, decadence, and eventually tyranny. Look at our culture now: mocking virtue, elevating self-worship, ignoring God. That’s what happens without the sacred.
Alain de Botton:
But we can—and must—reinvent sacred language. The sacred doesn’t have to be supernatural. We can make museums feel like temples. We can treat love and grief with ritual. We just need to remember how to point upward—without needing angels to hold the signs.
Susan Blackmore:
Honestly, I think we gain something. When we stop pretending we know what “sacred” means in an ultimate sense, we return to not-knowing. That’s the most sacred space of all—open, quiet, ego-free.
You don’t need metaphysics. You need humility.
Zena Hitz:
But humility needs shape. Awe without form is like water without a cup. You can’t carry it far.
Without sacred language—without liturgy, stories, holy days—we risk forgetting what matters most. And when we forget, we lose the means to recover it.
Jordan Peterson:
If we lose the sacred, we lose the ability to suffer meaningfully.
And if you can’t suffer meaningfully, you will suffer destructively. That’s not philosophy. That’s history.
Iain McGilchrist:
Powerful closing thoughts. Thank you all.
Topic 4: If God is Good, Why Is the World Full of Evil?
Moderator: Karen Armstrong
Format: 53r1 — 5 speakers, 3 questions, randomized speaker order, ~1000 words
Framing:
The question of evil has haunted believers for centuries. If God is all-powerful and all-good, how can He allow suffering, injustice, and cruelty? Is the problem of evil a fatal blow to faith—or the very reason we need it?
Karen Armstrong:
Let’s begin with the classic dilemma. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does evil exist? How do each of you respond to this question personally or philosophically?
Charlie Kirk:
Evil exists because of free will. God created us with the capacity to love—which means the capacity to reject love too. Without that freedom, we’d be robots, not souls.
What we call evil is often the result of human sin. God didn’t create evil—He created choice. And through that, He invites redemption. The cross isn’t a contradiction of suffering—it’s the answer to it.
Bart Ehrman:
That sounds nice until you read Scripture. God doesn’t just allow suffering—He often causes it. Entire cities wiped out. Innocent children killed. And today? Earthquakes, cancers, genocides.
I left the faith not because I wanted to sin—but because the Bible’s God didn’t match reality. A good God wouldn’t let children starve by the millions. It’s not mystery. It’s moral failure.
Jordan Peterson:
I don’t pretend to “solve” the problem of evil. But I’ve seen people endure horrific suffering with courage, with grace—even with gratitude.
Evil isn’t proof against God. It’s the stage on which heroism is revealed. The story of Christ is not an escape from suffering—it’s God entering into it. That’s not an answer. But it’s a pattern worth following.
Dara Horn:
From a Jewish perspective, the question isn’t "Why does evil exist?"—but What do we do now? The Hebrew Bible doesn’t explain suffering—it laments it, argues with it, and resists it.
Job doesn’t get answers. He gets presence. In Jewish tradition, God isn’t a vending machine for comfort. He’s the God of the Holocaust and of the Exodus—always asking us to remember, respond, and wrestle.
Douglas Murray:
I’m not religious, but I deeply respect that struggle. The problem of evil is more than intellectual—it’s personal. Everyone, at some point, is faced with grief that makes belief tremble.
But I also wonder: if there is no God, no justice beyond the grave—what do we do with evil then? Call it “bad luck”? Evolution? That seems worse. At least faith attempts to confront evil with hope.
Karen Armstrong:
Thank you. Let’s go deeper. Can suffering serve a spiritual purpose—or is that just religious justification for cruelty?
Jordan Peterson:
Suffering, rightly faced, can lead to transformation. It’s the furnace of character. I’ve worked with trauma victims, addicts, prisoners—and the ones who grew didn’t do so in spite of suffering, but because they learned how to carry it.
Christ doesn’t eliminate pain. He teaches you how to bear the unbearable—and still aim upward. That’s not cruelty. That’s meaning.
Bart Ehrman:
But that doesn’t work when you’re talking about children with cancer. Are we really going to say a 4-year-old’s agony serves a higher purpose?
It may comfort adults to find purpose in their pain. But to look at mass suffering—especially innocent suffering—and still claim this is a plan? That’s not comforting. That’s gaslighting.
Charlie Kirk:
I understand the emotional weight, Bart. But the Bible never sugarcoats suffering. It shows us a Savior who bleeds. And that’s the difference between Christianity and cold philosophy.
Yes, the world is broken. But the Christian story is that God didn’t stay distant—He entered history, suffered unjustly, and redeemed what was lost. That doesn’t erase pain. But it dignifies it.
Dara Horn:
Suffering doesn’t always lead to growth. Sometimes it breaks people. The challenge is not to find silver linings—but to respond with justice.
In Jewish tradition, we remember Pharaoh, Amalek, the Shoah—not to justify them, but to prevent them. Spirituality isn’t about excusing suffering. It’s about making sure it doesn’t repeat.
Douglas Murray:
This is where I struggle. As someone who’s watched suffering up close—in war zones, in despair—I don’t find meaning automatically rises from it.
But I’ve also seen people who, even in the worst pain, found beauty, loyalty, even joy. I don’t think we can demand a purpose from suffering. But we can honor those who endure it with dignity.
Karen Armstrong:
Final question: Does the presence of evil disprove God—or prove our need for Him?
Charlie Kirk:
It proves our need. Without God, evil is just atoms colliding. It has no name. But in Christianity, evil is rebellion—and goodness is a person.
God doesn’t just sit above evil—He defeated it on the cross. And one day, He will end it forever. That’s not superstition. That’s hope.
Bart Ehrman:
Or it’s wishful thinking. Evil isn’t rebellion—it’s reality. And if God exists and allows it, then He’s not good. Period.
We shouldn’t need to torture logic to protect theology. We should tell the truth—even when it costs us the comfort of belief.
Jordan Peterson:
But telling the truth is a religious act. And so is resisting despair. When you choose to love in the face of suffering, you’re living a divine pattern—whether or not you believe it.
That’s why I believe—not in spite of suffering, but because of the possibility of rising through it.
Dara Horn:
I don’t know if evil disproves God. But I know it deepens the question. And in Judaism, questions are holy. We don’t hide from them. We wrestle, like Jacob did.
God doesn’t need us to win the argument. He invites us to stay in the ring.
Douglas Murray:
If the presence of evil means God must justify Himself—then we’re in judgment over the divine. But if we are alone in this universe, then the question of evil becomes even more unbearable.
Maybe belief doesn’t solve the problem of evil. But unbelief, too, leaves us with unanswered cries.
Karen Armstrong:
A haunting, honest conversation. Thank you all for the depth of your convictions—and your humility in exploring them.
Topic 5: Does Western Civilization Depend on Christianity to Survive?
Moderator: Tom Holland
Format: 53r1 — 5 speakers, 3 questions, randomized speaker order, ~1000 words
Framing:
As the West becomes more secular, many wonder whether the foundations of its freedoms, institutions, and moral compass can endure without Christianity. Is faith essential to civilization—or just its scaffolding?
Tom Holland:
Let’s begin at the roots. Can Western civilization—its values, liberties, and identity—truly survive without Christianity? Or are we unknowingly dismantling the very structure we stand on?
Jordan Peterson:
I’ve said it many times: the West is built on a Christian substrate. Our institutions, our rights, even our concept of the individual—they’re Christian in origin, even if we’ve forgotten.
Remove Christianity, and you eventually remove the moral grammar. We’re still playing the same symphony, but we’ve thrown away the sheet music. Eventually, chaos replaces harmony.
Charlie Kirk:
Exactly. Christianity isn’t just a historical influence—it’s the blueprint for freedom, law, and moral order.
The separation of powers, the dignity of man, the idea that government is not God—all trace back to a biblical worldview. Lose Christianity, and you won’t get Sweden. You’ll get civilizational collapse.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
As someone raised in an Islamic society and who became an atheist, I eventually realized that secularism without Christian values becomes rootless.
What I once dismissed as superstition, I now see as civilizational glue. Christianity humanized authority, protected conscience, and upheld women’s dignity in ways my native culture did not. We abandon it at our peril.
Richard Dawkins:
I disagree. Civilization evolves. Yes, Christianity played a role in shaping the West—but so did Greek philosophy, the Enlightenment, and science.
We don’t need religion to protect human rights. We need reason, evidence, and compassion. You don’t need to believe in a virgin birth to oppose tyranny or love your neighbor.
Douglas Murray:
But Richard, even those Enlightenment ideals you cherish—tolerance, universal dignity—arose in a Christian context.
I’m not a churchgoer, but I see the danger. We’re living on borrowed moral capital. When it runs out, we may discover that “secular reason” isn’t enough to hold a society together. And then what replaces it?
Tom Holland:
Let’s go further. If Christianity vanishes from public life, what’s likely to replace it? Can secular alternatives sustain social cohesion and moral depth?
Charlie Kirk:
What replaces Christianity? Wokeness. Statism. Narcissism.
We’re already seeing it. People worship politics, self-image, identity. But those things don’t forgive. They don’t build—they burn. Christianity gives us mercy, order, humility. Its alternatives give us confusion.
Richard Dawkins:
That’s fearmongering. Secularism isn’t chaos. It’s reasoned pluralism. We can teach ethics in schools, develop compassion through art and literature, and build communities without clerical authority.
Humanism is not nihilism. It’s liberation from superstition.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
But secularism tends to deconstruct without building. In the absence of God, people look for transcendence elsewhere—in ideology, in race, in gender politics. These things demand obedience, but offer no redemption.
Christianity tempered power. Its absence unleashes new dogmas without grace.
Jordan Peterson:
And those ideologies mimic Christianity. They have saints and sinners, rituals and purges, but no forgiveness. They offer identity without transformation.
The West didn’t invent morality from scratch. It inherited it. And we’re now sawing off the branch we’re sitting on.
Douglas Murray:
What concerns me is the hubris. We assume we can detach values from their source—as if liberty, dignity, and conscience just float.
But history suggests otherwise. When people forget their story, they become prey to new and darker myths.
Tom Holland:
Final question. Should the West seek to revive its Christian roots—or is it time to forge a post-religious identity?
Richard Dawkins:
It’s time to move on. We need ethics based on reality, not ancient texts. The future belongs to science, not superstition.
We don’t need revival. We need courage—to live morally without myths.
Charlie Kirk:
That’s a dangerous dream. You can’t have a house without a foundation. The West is a Christian project. Reject that, and you reject its achievements.
We don’t need post-religion. We need post-apathy—a return to faith that built freedom.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
We may not need to return to blind faith—but we do need to recover the Christian imagination.
Its stories shaped our best intuitions: that weakness deserves protection, that truth has dignity, that power should serve love. We need not fundamentalism—but remembrance.
Jordan Peterson:
To be Christian is to act as if Being itself is good. That belief held the West together through plagues, wars, and despair.
We can modernize our expressions of faith—but if we lose that metaphysical courage, we lose the spine of our civilization.
Douglas Murray:
The question isn’t revival or reinvention. It’s survival.
We are heirs to a legacy we don’t fully understand. And if we abandon it without care, we may not get a second chance to reclaim it.
Tom Holland:
A stirring conclusion to a vital question. Thank you all for the passion and the thought you’ve brought to this series.
Topic 6: Can a New Spiritual Awakening Restore the Moral Foundations of the West?
Moderator: Karen Armstrong
Participants:
Rev. Sun Myung Moon – Visionary spiritual leader focused on interfaith unity and family restoration
Jordan Peterson – Archetypal psychologist concerned with Western decline and spiritual renewal
Charlie Kirk – Defender of traditional Christian moral foundations
Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Former atheist exploring faith as a civilizational necessity
Zena Hitz – Philosopher focused on virtue, contemplation, and soul restoration
Karen Armstrong:
Our prior discussions have shown both the decline of shared values and the deep hunger for transcendence. So let me begin this new chapter:
Is it possible to spark a new spiritual awakening—one not bound by denomination or ideology, but grounded in shared moral truth?
Rev. Sun Myung Moon:
Yes, absolutely. The world is not perishing because of political systems—but because love has been lost from the center of human life.
God’s dream is one human family under heaven. The family is where moral values take root. When families are centered on true love—not selfish desire—we lay the foundation for peaceful societies.
A spiritual awakening must begin with restoring the sacredness of marriage, parenthood, and selfless living.
Charlie Kirk:
Rev. Moon, I agree with your emphasis on family, but I would add—this awakening must be rooted in biblical truth.
We can’t unite around vague spirituality. We need to repent, return to Scripture, and rebuild culture on God’s law.
The Gospel is the only true path to spiritual rebirth. The West will not survive without a return to Christ.
Jordan Peterson:
What you’re both saying, in different language, is that truth demands transformation.
You cannot awaken spiritually without taking on the heaviest burden you can carry.
That’s why I talk about meaning through responsibility. And family—yes—is a sacred domain where that meaning crystallizes. It’s also where the war against meaning is being waged.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
What’s changed for me recently is realizing that secular institutions cannot fill the soul.
We cannot argue people into morality—we must inspire them.
Rev. Moon’s vision of a global family and Charlie’s call to return to Scripture both resonate with me—because I now believe only faith in something higher can save the West from fragmentation.
Zena Hitz:
And yet, awakening requires more than slogans or creeds. It demands formation.
We need to raise people who can contemplate, forgive, sacrifice, and endure.
I see hope in what’s happening now—young people tired of nihilism, seeking something deeper. The role of thinkers, pastors, parents, and prophets is to prepare them—quietly, consistently—for awakening.
Karen Armstrong:
If we are to move forward, what should this awakening look like—personally, socially, and spiritually?
Rev. Sun Myung Moon:
It must be interreligious, intergenerational, and international.
The Messiah today is not one religion fighting others—but the heart of God expressed through true love lived in the family.
We must see all people as children of God—atheist or believer, conservative or liberal—and begin rebuilding trust from the home outward.
This is not idealism. It is Heaven’s command.
Jordan Peterson:
I would say it must begin individually—with a voluntary decision to walk uphill.
No awakening is collective without personal agony and transformation.
The path to meaning is through the chaos of your own life. Integrate it. Shoulder your cross. Then you become someone others can follow.
Charlie Kirk:
But we must also fight in the public square. Faith without action is dead.
We need churches to preach boldly, parents to lead courageously, and schools to reject godlessness.
Yes, awakening begins at home—but it must be declared in culture. No more hiding.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Perhaps this awakening must also include a new humility.
The West once believed it had no need for God. Now it suffers the consequences.
We must allow for cultural repentance—and a return to the sacred.
Not by coercion. But by freely choosing reverence over pride.
Zena Hitz:
That’s why I believe education will be key. Not just information, but formation of soul.
We need people who can sit with silence, read ancient texts, and hold contradictions in love.
The awakening will not be loud at first—it will be slow, invisible, like seeds in the soil.
Karen Armstrong:
And what has this meeting produced? What fruit might come from such a convergence?
Positive Outcomes of the Conversation:
Common Moral Ground Across Divides
For the first time, a traditional Christian, a new convert, a psychologist, and an interfaith religious leader all acknowledged that the sacred must return to public life—not merely as belief, but as behavior and responsibility.Marriage and Family Elevated as Spiritual Practice
Rev. Moon's insight that family is the altar of love reframed moral revival—not as political warfare, but as daily sacrifice in the home. This drew affirmation even from secular minds.Public vs. Private Renewal Integrated
Charlie’s call for political courage, Peterson’s inward responsibility, and Zena’s contemplative virtue offered a threefold model of spiritual activism: personal transformation, cultural reform, and soul formation.A Language of Unity, Not Dogma
While theological differences remained, the participants aligned around “true love,” “sacred duty,” and “moral revival”—a shared language that respects doctrine but transcends denomination.Seeds of a Moral Alliance Formed
Ayaan’s willingness to stand between believers and skeptics—combined with Armstrong’s bridge-building spirit—set the tone for future alliances across faiths, traditions, and nations.
Final Thoughts by Paula White
What we’ve heard in these conversations is not just intellect clashing with belief—it’s the cry of a generation longing for truth. We’ve seen Jordan Peterson challenge both the religious and the secular to rise higher. We’ve heard from atheists who wrestle honestly with morality, meaning, and evil. And we’ve witnessed voices like Rev. Sun Myung Moon and Charlie Kirk call us back to the eternal principles that made the West strong.
But now the question turns to you. Will we continue down a path of spiritual amnesia—or will we remember who we are, and more importantly, Whose we are?
This is not the end—it is the beginning of an awakening. An awakening of conscience. Of courage. Of conviction. And yes, of Christ-centered clarity. The West can rise again, but only if it bows once more—to truth, to love, to God. Let this conversation not stay on screens and pages, but take root in homes, in hearts, and in nations. Because revival always begins with a choice.
Short Bios:
Jordan Peterson
A Canadian clinical psychologist and professor, Peterson is widely known for his work on archetypal symbolism, personal responsibility, and cultural criticism. He often explores the intersection of psychology, religion, and meaning.
Charlie Kirk
An American conservative political commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, Kirk advocates for traditional Christian values, free markets, and the restoration of America’s moral foundation.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
A former Muslim and now Christian intellectual, Ayaan is a human rights activist and author known for her critique of radical Islam, defense of Western values, and evolving views on faith and civilization.
Richard Dawkins
A British evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, Dawkins is best known for The God Delusion and his advocacy of science, reason, and secular ethics over religious belief.
Bart Ehrman
A New Testament scholar and former evangelical, Ehrman is known for his critical studies of biblical texts, the historical Jesus, and the evolution of early Christian doctrine.
Douglas Murray
A British author and political analyst, Murray writes on culture, religion, and identity. Though not religious, he has argued for the civilizational value of Christianity in Western society.
Zena Hitz
A scholar of ancient philosophy and author of Lost in Thought, Hitz champions the life of the mind and the transformative power of contemplation, virtue, and classical education.
Karen Armstrong
A former nun and respected religious historian, Armstrong writes widely on interfaith understanding and the history of religion. She emphasizes compassion as the core of all great faiths.
Tom Holland
An English historian and author, Holland is known for works like Dominion, in which he argues that Christianity shaped many core values of the modern West—even among secularists.
Rev. Sun Myung Moon
Founder of the Unification Movement, Rev. Moon was a Korean spiritual leader whose vision centered on global family, interfaith harmony, and restoring God’s original purpose through marriage and selfless love.
Paula White
An American televangelist and spiritual advisor, Paula White-Cain currently serves as the Senior Advisor to the White House Faith Office under President Donald Trump's administration. She previously held the same position during Trump's first term, where she led the Faith and Opportunity Initiative. White-Cain is the founder of Paula White Ministries and the National Faith Advisory Board, and she continues to be a prominent figure in charismatic Christian circles.
Leave a Reply