We're Still Not Done with Jesus
108 comments
·March 25, 2025Ninjinka
Many points in this article are presented as accepted fact, but are not (even among non-Christian scholars).
Such as:
> "Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened. These were composed somewhere far from Jerusalem, in a language that Jesus and his disciples would not have known, by writers who could not have been eyewitnesses.
The claim that Jesus and his disciples "would not have known" Greek is historically inaccurate. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire and commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea alongside Aramaic and Hebrew. Coins, inscriptions, and documents from the period confirm its widespread use.
And "writers who could not have been eyewitnesses"? Presumably this is referring to Mark and Luke only, because Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles.
davmre
Scholarly consensus is that the "Gospel of Matthew" was not written by the apostle Matthew and the "Gospel of John" was not written by the apostle John:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author_and_d...
Ninjinka
For that assertion to hold water, "scholarly consensus" would have to define "scholarly" so narrowly as to exclude the vast majority of scholars (it seems like it should go without saying that most scholars in this area are Christian who maintain apostolic authorship).
Perhaps they are dismissing scholars who identify as Christian? That would be quite the catch-22.
jarpadat
In case you are interested, here is some data on how scholars view apostolic authorship: https://thesacredpage.com/2024/12/13/the-2024-survey-of-paul...
To me, it is apparent that the data cannot support any clean division between two "sides", it tells a more complicated story about sometimes there was apostolic authorship, sometimes not, and sometimes we don't really know.
I would suggest that the real academic consensus is that we can confidently rule out the us-vs-them preoccupation that is common in lay discussion.
normalaccess
And 8 out of 10 dentists prefer Colgate...
MisterBastahrd
None of the gospel writers were the people whose names are attributed to them.
freeopinion
This is bit besides the point, but I'll stick it here anyway.
When I read <u>A Man Called Ove</u> in English I was impressed over and over again with the writing. It made me wish I could understand Swedish to compare the original prose. I concluded that Henning Koch is an amazingly talented wordsmith. And it made me suspect that Fredrik Backman might also be one. Clearly, Backman is a very good writer. But I wonder if Koch is a better wordsmith. Sadly, I am unable to enjoy Backman in the original language. As it is, I credit Backman with great writing and Koch with great wording (probably inspired by Backman's great wording).
niemandhier
I often read translations along side the original. So far the originals always were better.
krapp
As far as I know the scholarly consensus is that none of the gospels, including Matthew and John, were written by disciples, or anyone who lived within Jesus' lifetime. Obviously Christians believe otherwise.
red_trumpet
> Obviously Christians believe otherwise.
Depends on the Christians. My Catholic school teachers in Germany taught us what you write.
throw0101c
> Pagels’s larger point is that the most improbable Gospel tales serve to patch a fractured narrative—using familiar tropes and myths to smooth over inconsistencies that believers struggled with from the beginning.
"Familiar tropes and myths" is perhaps something you'd consider as the 20/21 Century literary critic, but I'm not sure a bunch of mostly peasants writing in the 1st Century would be.
And it's not like they had anything to gain by writing and spreading about their beliefs: the early Christians were ostracized from their community(s) and persecuted. For the first ~300 years of the existence of Christianity there was probably little but trouble from believing in it, until roughly the conversion of Constantine (312) and later the Edict of Milan.
onlypassingthru
Were first century peasants educated and wealthy enough to write? How good were the public schools back then?
throw0101c
> Were first century peasants educated and wealthy enough to write?
"Peasant" would exist on a spectrum: some think Luke was a physician and thus literate. Peter was a fisherman and probably illiterate, but it was certainly possible to dictate someone who could write.
Remember also that oral tradition was a thing as well in many societies:
null
drekipus
> the first-century Jewish rabbi
I don't know why they put rabbi there. Jesus is later rejected by Jewish teachings and is probably considered heretical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_Jesus
Although I really appreciate what Jesus adds to the religious stories as it opened it up to the world, in a sense of "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision).
cherryteastain
How is it inaccurate?
John 1:38
> Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
John 3:2
> The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 20:16
> Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
drekipus
"which is to say, master" is the part we're talking about here. jesus isnt a modern day rabbi, but was a teacher in the classical sense. makes sense to me. thanks
calebio
I think there's a decent case to be made that he was considered a "rabbi", or teacher in the time period prior to the destruction of the second temple, by a group of jewish folks.
As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.
drekipus
That's fair. Thanks
VOIPThrowaway
That's the Christian viewpoint in that Christians view themselves as the valid continuation of the first convenient between god and the Hebrews.
calebio
Sure, but as far as I understand it, his followers were Jewish people, those followers called him Rabbi, so at that time... it was a "Jewish viewpoint".
ViktorRay
It is possible for one to be a rabbi and also be rejected by other rabbis.
Judaism wasn't a monolith then and isn't now.
null
dismalaf
The fact he was rejected posthumously by those who became the dominant orthodox sect doesn't mean he wasn't a rabbi during his time.
stared
Jesus' teachings fit within the diversity of Jewish sects existing at the time—Sadducees, Pharisees (literally "sectarians," derived from the Greek word Pharisaios, sharing the same root as the word "pariah"), and Essenes (a mystical, monastic sect; some speculate Jesus may have been associated with them).
Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.")
> "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision)
This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.
ggm
Historians of reddit have to deal with this on a recurring basis. It's hard when textual refs stop in Josephus and the accretion of centuries of editorial over ur-texts.
Often times people seek to argue by comparison: "we have less evidence Darius or Julius Caesar existed" type arguments about the primacy of contemporary eye witness accounts, distinct from eg economic and architectural evidence.
Fugitive Christians didn't have time to collate the "I was there" takes and now it's Analects.
NoMoreNicksLeft
[flagged]
TheBlight
Why is this acceptable but if referring to Islam as a "mystery cult" a comment would be flagged immediately? I fully expect my critique here to receive a flag.
AlecSchueler
> referring to Islam as a "mystery cult" a comment would be flagged immediately?
Would it be? It's my experience of HN that these things are all grouped as Abrahamic mythology. Cult is quite a charged word but I would be surprised to see it flagged in this environment.
NoMoreNicksLeft
How is it unacceptable? Do you not know what a mystery cult is?
krapp
Christianity isn't a mystery cult.There isn't really a hierarchy keeping secret rituals and knowledge from the masses or acolytes. At best it's a failed apocalypse cult.
And by "failed" I mean it seems clear from Matthew 24:34 that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes (assuming that account is credible,) and such a belief is consistent with every other apocalyptic cult, Christian or otherwise. Like Seventh Day Adventists, Christians do keep kicking the can down the road, but just as the book of Revelations more likely refers to Nero Caesar and a belief at the time that he would return from the dead ("Nero Redivius[0]") than some future nuclear war where the "locusts" are really Apache helicopters[1], so Christian beliefs about the second coming should be assumed to apply their own cultural and temporal context, rather than some as yet unknown future millennia removed.
Obviously the cult as a whole has been very, very successful.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus
[1]I know people who believe this, and they'll claim it as evidence of the Bible's divine prophetic power.
selfhoster
Agree with the first part of your comment but "that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse.
In modern culture, it's often asserted the apocalypse has occurred any time someone doesn't get their way.
Boogie_Man
The section of Mathew is understood by mainstream Christianity as a "double prophecy" concerning both the destruction of the second temple and the eventual second coming of Christ. I can understand someone seeing this as moving goalposts until I consider that it could've been quietly deleted to avoid embarrassment if it wasn't intended this way.
Christians have a wide range of views on eschatology, but the mainstream position for a while has been amillennial, which are not the people who get freaked out about locusts and red cows and whatnot.
pstuart
> no one seems to care now.
Indeed. They believe and that's that -- there's zero proof that would change their minds. I'm a non believer but would be willing to change my mind if there was compelling evidence.
swat535
If you don’t want to believe, I think that’s fine, however saying that there is zero evidence or philosophical arguments that could at least gives you pause would be shortsighted.
Hitchen’s tried to hold this position by regurgitatation decade old counter arguments publicly and all he got attributed to him at the end was “hitch-slaps”.
adamtaylor_13
If you haven’t found compelling evidence, then you haven’t looked. I’m not being snarky. Look up a list of atheists who set out to disprove God. Once you start looking, it’s impossible to miss.
What most people seem to mean by this is, “If God himself came down in a column of fire, then I’d believe.”
Most folks can’t be bothered to actually dig into the real, ample evidence that exists. You like philosophical arguments? There’s philosophical arguments for it. You like astronomical or geologic arguments? There’s that too. Logic? Check.
There’s so much evidence for Christ, it’s basically the only logically consistent worldview. I know I’ll get downvoted to hell for saying that (heh) but it’s true. There is not another logically consistent worldview beyond Christianity.
throw0101c
> Strangely, that's the one constant... no one cared back then if he was real, and no one seems to care now.
Plenty of people cared then:
> 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died[e] in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians...
And plenty of people care now:
pyjarrett
> no one cared back then if he was real,
This was directly addressed in 2 John 7
"I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world."
KerbalNo15
"For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength." -- 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 (CSB)
Today is not so different from 30AD; It's still by God's mercy that any are saved. This reconciliation is still offered today:
"The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." -- Romans 3:22-24 (CSB)
We're not done with Jesus because Christianity isn't a trend. This is God's rescue mission.
corkybeta
Mention of Richard Carrier was odd. The mythicist angle of Gospel accounts seems the least worthy of mention, even when the author encourages taking his work with the proverbial sodium. I like watching Tim O'Neill angrily refute everything Carrier says - he really doesn't like the guy.
Reasoning
> In various texts, including Apocryphal works that date to around the same time as the Gospels proper, Joseph appears to suspect Mary of infidelity.
This struck me as a strange statement to not explain further. Plenty of Christians interpret Matthew 1:19 to mean Joseph was going to divorce Mary because he believed she was unfaithful.
> The consoling notion of divine impregnation was commonplace in the Hellenistic world, with countless tales of gods foisting demigods on virgins. Plutarch, for instance, described Rome’s founder Romulus as born to a divinely impregnated vestal virgin.
The later is true but it's strange to use Plutarch as an example considering that at best he would have been writing Parallel Lives at the same time the Gospels were being written.
> Those attributed to Jesus—described in language nearly identical to accounts of the Greek mystic and holy man Apollonius of Tyana, say—are neither more nor less convincing than others.
Well "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" was written in the early 200ADs, approximately 100 years after the last Gospel was written. Once again, the point may be correct but the example given is confusing cause and effect.
> A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start. There were no rips in the fabric of memory, in this view, because there were no memories to mend—no foundational oral tradition beneath the narratives, only a lattice of tropes. The Gospel authors, far from being community leaders preserving oral sayings for largely illiterate followers, were highly literate members of a small, erudite upper crust, distant in experience, attitude, and geography from any Galilean peasant preachers.
That seems like an extraordinary claim to make. The Gospels were drawn from no oral tradition, really? So there was a complete disconnect between the practitioners of early Christianity, who obviously would have their own oral tradition, and the Gospels writers. And the early Christians then accepted the Gospels even though they had no relationship to their existing traditions? Or is the claim the Christianity didn't exist until the Gospels were created, in which case you have to contest with the Apocrypha and historical accounts of Jesus.
The simplest explanation seems to be that the Gospels drew from early Christian oral tradition and now lost writings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels# for an explanation "now lost writings".
spiderfarmer
We should have moved on to more interesting subjects long ago.
I can’t wait till we talk about Jesus and God in the same way we talk about Hades and Zeus.
Countries with strong secular foundations regularly top global indexes of well-being, prosperity, and social progress. This trend suggests that separating religious doctrines from public policy is a key benchmark for human advancement. When societies cling too tightly to the faith traditions they’ve inherited—by accident of birth—they often impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
freeopinion
It seems self-evident that clinging to inherited faith traditions can impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
But it seems empirically true that much of what we consider critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance has been handed down to us through societies that practice(d) inherited faith traditions. That is, even critical thinking, etc. that did not originate in a particular faith-clinging society has been preserved and nurtured through multiple other societies even when the interceding societies largely clung to inherited faith traditions different than the origin.
So perhaps faith-clinging societies can be inconsistently close-minded and open-minded at the same time. Rather human.
SSLy
I won't defend religion here as such, but whatever was happening in the Mediterranean basin in 1st to 3rd century wrt. the religion seems to be incredibly fascinating via the anthropological/cultural lens too.
ysavir
Moreso than religion in other parts of the world at other times? What about the Mediterranean in the 1st to 3rd century makes it stand out to you?
null
SSLy
Whatever was happening there at the time developed certain writings, which were then used during next 2000 years as means to project political power.
ohgr
The 800 years or so before that is far more interesting from that perspective. It was all a bit crap after that!
I do wonder if things went differently we'd be 1000 years ahead of where we are now.
gsf_emergency_2
Athenians (early AIdeologues) being too successful for their own good, then dropping the ball like Sama/PG? Their neighbors learning the wrong lessons? Surely other places before & somewhat after had to grapple (in sword & word ) with the implications of extending the "FranchAIse". Like in the Levant, forex.
SSLy
I can't disagree. The gaps are terrible.
setsewerd
Slightly tangential but The Economist put out a really cool interactive article a year or so back — it explores the relationships between factors like economic development, secularism, social trust, and in essence, levels of tribalism. The findings are a bit more complex than people might expect.
Excerpt: "On the face of it, this shift suggests that people do think differently as they escape from poverty and insecurity... Perhaps. But at the moment, the WVS findings suggest this is not happening without obstacles and detours. If poorer countries were indeed converging with rich ones in terms of values, you would expect that they would be the ones where values are changing fastest, whereas the countries they are catching up with would be more stable. In fact the survey finds the opposite. Countries that are already the most secular and individualistic are changing fastest and becoming even more secular; those that are most traditional and clannish are changing less and sometimes becoming more traditional, not less."
Here it is: https://www.economist.com/interactive/international/2023/08/...
Archived page is less visually engaging without the interactive graphs but the analysis is still worth reading: https://archive.ph/rRx7s
throw0101c
> Countries with strong secular foundations regularly top global indexes of well-being, prosperity, and social progress.
And which countries have "secular foundations"? Anything in 'the West' would have Christian foundations:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(Holland_book)
In the Middle East it would be Muslim, India would be Hindu. Perhaps you mean China, which historically tended to be be Confucian, which could perhaps be considered more of a philosophy than a religion? But modern China is (notionally) Marxist-Communist, which is materialist/atheistic in teaching, but born out of the Enlightenment, which is certainly Christian inspired.
The idea of secularism—a separation of Church/Temple/Mosque and State, and religion being a private affair—is itself a Christian/Protestant one.
* https://pragyata.com/secularism-as-a-colonial-project/
* https://www.jstor.org/stable/4417675
* https://research.flw.ugent.be/nl/projects/secularism-colonia...
rvense
The interesting question is whether the West is succesful because of or inspite of our Christian base. There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity. Christianity has changed a lot since Roman times, and its place and expression in various societies have been affected by other ideological currents and reinterpretations.
I'm Danish, which while nominally Christian has been a fairly irreligious country for a few generations now, and it certainly seems to me that the less influence and visibility Christianity has had, the better off we've been. Most of the things that make this country a good place to live come from socialism/social democracy and feminism, whereas many strands of Christianity has mostly been a reactionary force (with some exceptions).
exe34
Christians and Christian apologists like to pretend that Christianity led to social progress, when at every turn, the church had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and only then claimed the progress as their own.
throw0101c
> There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity.
Well, the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant). Which is tied in with the concept of individualism:
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/27/inventing-indi...
The modern idea of science needed certain metaphysical assumptions that weren't really present in many other religions (and to the extent they were present in philosophy, aspects of said philosophy(s) were often mainstreamed by Christianity (e.g., Aristotle)):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid...
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God_the_Geometer.jpg
And where "science" (or what passed for it at the time) existed elsewhere, it often withered or was snuffed out; the invention of the telescope was transformational in Europe, but not so much in Muslim lands, Mughal India, or Imperial China:
* https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/intellectual-curiosity-...
Various legal forms were promulgated by the Church (including that the authorities themselves were not (notionally) above the law: not something you'll find with (e.g.) the Chinese Emperor), as were universities:
* https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo562094...
And if they were not due to Christianity, I'd say [citation needed] on how they developed otherwise. And more than developed, but became 'mainstream' thinking in many parts of the globe (though certainly not universally, as Chinese Uyghurs are experiencing).
anon743448
What I find fascinating is that people seeking their roots and historical family tree always stay within their religion.
Almost all Muslim Pakistanis and Christian Indians somehow trace their family tree back to Middle East during the time period of their prophets. Many times it is obvious that even if they have any middle eastern DNA, it is negligible compared to rest of it. Why not learn about your ancestors who were not of same religion as you.
And why stop at 1400 or 2000 years back. Why not trace it further back.
And in the west, with superiority complex of European culture, many serious Christians get absolutely confused when you tell them that it is amazing how a middle eastern religion took over the entire Europe and the west. Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern.
Reasoning
> ...Christians get absolutely confused when you tell them that it is amazing how a middle eastern religion took over the entire Europe and the west. Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern
Many atheists make this claim but I've never met one of these Christians in my life. At least in my experience Judaism and Middle Eastern history were taught as part of my religious tutoring.
lukan
"Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern."
Not really that many. Basically only some Nazi "christians" and they are not a thing anymore.
spiderfarmer
Luckily, christianity is very much on it’s way out in Europe:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/23/15/4A789846000...
alchemist1e9
Why do you see it as lucky? Has it been a negative influence on Europe?
slashdev
Or unluckily. Europe has Christian roots, values, and dreams. Cutting that out without also destroying or transmuting Europe is not necessarily possible.
It seems to me that the rise of woke ideology is an attempt to replace a religion sized hole in the fabric of society.
That objection aside, Europe is well below replacement birth rates. Should that continue, it will be replaced by cultures which reproduce. Is religion required for that? Maybe
Affric
When did Zeus provide moral teachings?
Jesus is fundamentally interesting because the moral teachings of the cult in his name have persisted as the dominant state morality for European societies for about a millennium and a half since Julian the apostate’s death to the present day.
Even Marx owes a huge amount of his philosophy to Owenite socialism and Christianity. The teachings of Jesus turn ideas of power on their head.
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
This idea is so deeply ingrained in western morality at this point that most cannot even see it but Christianity is the bottleneck through which all egalitarianist thought in the west has passed through.
You talk about faith impeding critical thinking while in the same paragraph talk about secularism as though it arose out of nothing.
The moral philosophy of the earliest of christians is profound and is the foundation of everything good in western society. The fanatical purism and reaction in what followed is instructive in terms of the cruelty that can exist in people professing empathy and the pitfalls of expecting a state to somehow act morally.
If we are talking about Jesus the same way we are talking about Zeus it will be the end of history there will be because there is no power in the idea that everyone is equal.
spiderfarmer
It would be interesting if the moral teachings started with Christianity, but they did not. There are plenty of other philosophical teachings from that time that had great impact on morality without feeling the need to subjugate others. For example, Greek philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle taught about virtue and justice centuries before Christianity. Confucius in China emphasized benevolence and duty long before Christian doctrine existed, and Buddha’s teachings focused on compassion and nonviolence without forcing conversion. These traditions show that moral ideas thrived in many places independently.
Affric
Yeah but none of the thinkers you listed came close to saying something as radical "the first shall be last and the last shall be first".
Like any moral philosophy professed Christianity has it's flaws, is professed by many a hypocrite, and worn as a cover for many a wicked person but its message on equality goes further than pretty much all moral philosophy I know from any earlier time.
kyleee
You’ve left out Islam which has arguably brought the most significant levels of peace and morality, without relying on subjugation and force
ohgr
Hey Greek mythology was far more interesting!
As for separation of religion and public policy, it is difficult when one is designed to parasitically attach itself to the other.
beeflet
You have to acknowledge that in our current time, atheism largely exists within christian societies. That's the basis for humanism and social justice and such. Before and after christianity you have master morality. The best thing I can say about atheist and prechristian societies is that they are "interesting".
ohgr
You do realise morality is fundamentally logic and predates Christianity by a fair bit? Christianity has an extrapolation over the basic tenets and certainly didn't stick to most of them over the years, or today based on The Lord's Resistance Army...
spiderfarmer
If the success of secular societies is attributed to their Christian roots, it raises the question of why nations with large, active Christian populations aren’t even more successful.
Perhaps the key isn’t Christianity itself, but rather the move away from any one religious framework.
By broadening our focus to the well-being of all citizens, guided by compassion and inclusivity rather than a singular religious authority, societies can foster more equitable systems.
This shift encourages diverse perspectives, evidence-based policymaking, and a shared commitment to improving everyone’s quality of life.
But you can also attack school teachers because your kid read a book you don't like. That will surely help.
Reasoning
Strong atheistic countries like North Korea and China?
exe34
no, they said secular, like Sweden and Norway.
Reasoning
> I can’t wait till we talk about Jesus and God in the same way we talk about Hades and Zeus.
> When societies cling too tightly to the faith traditions they’ve inherited—by accident of birth—they often impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
It's pretty clear he's talking about atheism.
And a secular state is definitionally a state without a state religion. Sweden and Norway both had state churches until very recently. A closely related country, Denmark, still has an official state church.
You can also look to Belarus, a secular state with a high rate of non-religiosity.
legitster
[dead]
blogabegonija
[dead]
https://archive.ph/CrwBy