In 2019 public historian Tom Holland published his book Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind, a thematic history examining the ways Christianity has fundamentally influenced western thinking. The book became a best-seller and critical favourite, though it did not sit well with some, particularly those with an animus against Christianity and religion in general. It has been, however, warmly embraced by Christian apologists and this has recently attracted the ire of the YouTube creator Stephen Woodford, known online as “Rationality Rules”. In typically trenchant style, Woodford has set about exposing Holland as “playing tennis without a net”. But Woodford clearly misunderstands and so mischaracterises Holland’s argument and this means his critique falls completely flat.

In recent years the movement formerly known as “New Atheism” has run out of steam. It was always something very much of a moment: beginning in no small part as a reaction to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and then proceeding as part of series of culture wars and skirmishes. But Christopher Hitchens is dead. Daniel Dennett is dead. An ageing Richard Dawkins still croaks from his bath chair occasionally, though these days he is mainly complaining about “wokeness” and trans people – even he seems bored with the anti-theist rhetoric of two decades ago. Sam Harris is onto about his third or fourth intellectual fad since his atheism books and so is probably, in a sense, the most culturally relevant of the erstwhile “Four Horsemen” of yore. But, on the whole, the moment has passed.

Of course, there are still atheists of the activist variety; as there long have been and always will be. And, unfortunately, they still make occasional forays into history, and still manage to get a lot of it wrong. Alex O’Connor – aka “Cosmic Skeptic” – made a couple of foolhardy attempts at explaining the Galileo Affair a few years ago, with truly dismal results: see my critique “Cosmic Skeptic Bungles Galileo” for the details here. Since then, thankfully, O’Connor has wisely chosen to stick to his field of theology and leave history alone. But the YouTuber who calls himself “Rationality Rules”, Stephen Woodford, is less circumspect.

Woodford’s channel presents regular videos on standard atheist arguments, anti-theistic polemic, counter-apologetics and – sometimes – a naive and rather quaintly old-fashioned version of history. Woodford clearly does not read deeply on history and so fully accepts the standard simplistic cliches that make up the online atheist version of the past: the wonderous rationality of Greece and Rome, the wicked “Dark Ages”, persecuted scientists and rationalists, and the glories of the Renaissance and the Enlighenment. His is a very nineteenth century and highly whiggish history: with emphasis on the struggle of progress against the forces of darkness and superstition.

So it is hardly surprising that Tom Holland’s 2019 bestseller, Dominion: Making of the Western Mind would not sit well with Woodford. Unlike Woodford, Holland certainly does read deeply on history. Anyone who has listened to The Rest is History, the excellent history podcast Holland presents with modern historian Dominic Sandbrook, would know that the breadth and depth of the research Holland does is impressive to the point of being obsessive. It is not for nothing that The Rest is History is the most popular podcast in the UK, in the top ten most popular in the US and by far the most popular history podcast on the planet today. So Holland is well aware that the caricature of history Woodford subscribes to is facile, sophomoric and often dead wrong.

But what seems to really stick in Woodford’s craw about Dominion is the way it has been embraced by Christian apologists. And, perhaps, the way Holland has at least to some extent welcomed that embrace. So Woodford has decided he needs to set the record straight and assure his viewers that Holland is something of a fraud: a mere littérateur posing as a historian, a pseudo apologist pretending to be objective and a wholly unreliable guide to history. To this end, he has posted his counter-blast to Holland’s Dominion: “How a NON-BELIEVER Became Christianity’s Favorite Historian, Tom Holland”.

I reviewed Dominion when it came out and found it interesting, provocative and overall convincing, as did most reviewers. Holland’s central premise is actually unremarkable and wholly uncontroversial: that western culture, morality and world-view has been profoundly influenced by the religious tradition that dominated it for the last 1700 years. But his thematic history of how this influence has worked to shape how we see the world – both in the west and, ultimately, beyond – explores exactly how different the pre-Christian world was and argues that things we accept as normal and natural are actually, fundamentally, rooted in Christianity. So, he argues, concepts such as universal human rights, the intrinsic equality of both the weak and the powerful, compassion for unfortunates and the need for charity are all significantly Christian in origin. He does not argue, it should be carefully noted at the outset, that these things are wholly Christian in origin. Or that these things are necessarily unique to Christianity. Or that they automatically follow or proceed from Christianity; either in theory or, indeed, in its very varied practice. We will come back to these important points later.

The overall theme of Dominion is, therefore, that Christianity has had such a profound influence on western thinking that we often do not even notice how ultimately Christian much of our thinking is. Pop histories (and anti-theist polemics) often heavily romanticise and familiarise the ancient world; presenting the Greeks and Romans as basically more or less like us, except dressed in chitons and togas. In fact, as Holland details, the pre-Christian western world was vastly more alien than most people realise. Torture for fun, rape of inferiors as a normal right, plunder of the conquered as righteous and massacres as a tool of political will were all generally acceptable to the Greeks and Romans. Whereas our pity for people suffering in a famine in a far off land, outrage at war crimes, charity for people who have no connection to us and horror at torture would be (with some exceptions) largely baffling to them. So what changed? Holland argues, with eloquence, nuance and at length, what happened was, substantially and so significantly, Christianity.

But Woodford is having none of this.

He sets out to assure his viewers that Holland is woefully mistaken and completely unreliable. The first thing an observant viewer would notice about his video, however, is that it is rather short. Holland’s narrative ranges over more than 25 centuries and comes in at more than 500 pages. Yet Woodford’s counter is less than 30 minutes long. The second thing our observant viewer may notice is that detailed references to and quotations from Dominion itself are weirdly conspicuous by their general absence from the video. You would think to critically analyse this closely-argued and fairly hefty book Woodford would need to take quite a bit of time and draw on it in detail, refer to it carefully, and quote from it extensively. But he does no such thing. Early in his piece (7.09 mins) he details claims made by Holland that he calls “deeply controversial” and presents the following quote:

Secularism, liberalism, science, socialism and Marxism, revolution, feminism and even homosexuality are actually deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed.

This is put on the screen in quotation marks and helpfully captioned “Dominion – Tom Holland”. So viewers would be forgiven for assuming this is a quote from Dominion itself. But it is not. This sentence is found absolutely nowhere in Holland’s book. It is found, however, in the Wikipedia entry for the book. Here it forms part of a précis of the book’s argument; a summary by the editors of the Wiki entry, not something found in the book or written by Holland. Only the part that reads “are deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed” is presented as a quote, but this is not found in Dominion either: it is from one of the reviews of the book the Wiki article references.

A little later (7.34 mins) Woodford presents another quote:

To live in a western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions.

This quote, at least, is actually found in Holland’s book (p. xxv). But it is also found prominently in an online extract from the book by his UK publisher, Little, Brown, as well as in several dozen online reviews of the book, and it is featured on the book’s Amazon pages. This is literally the only quote from the book itself found anywhere in the video and it, like the Wiki entry non-quote, seems to be cribbed from the internet.

It is very clear that Woodford has not actually read Dominion.

This becomes even more clear as Woodford proceeds with his critique of Holland’s arguments. Instead of illustrating his analysis with quotations from Dominion itself, Woodford consistently refers instead to videos of interviews Holland has given where he discusses what his book says. Naturally, this is understandable to an extent: after all, video snippets lend themselves more readily to Woodford’s format than walls of text. But the problem is that it seems Woodford is relying purely on his interpretation of these videos for his understanding of Holland’s thesis, not on any actual reading of the book itself. And, as we will see, his interpretation is absolutely terrible.

Misconceptions and Misrepresentation

One reason Woodford misunderstands Holland so badly, apart from the fact he did not bother to read his book, is he seems determined to see Holland as essentially a Christian apologist. Of course, he is clear that Holland is not actually a believer, but his primary sin, in Woodford’s eyes, appears to be the fact that he is cited, feted and interviewed by a succession of active and prominent online apologists. So he begins his video with an amusing montage of Christian apologist Michael Jones namechecking Holland no less than eleven times in (edited) rapid succession.

Woodford emphasises that “Holland now describes himself as a ‘cultural Christian'” (5.52 mins) and goes on to interpret this in a strange and rather uncharitable manner:

It’s a position that allows him to advocate for Christianity’s civilizational importance, without having to defend the more difficult theological assertions. It’s quite convenient. (5.58 mins)

A less weird way to put it would be simply that it is simply that Holland accepts that he is shaped by his culture, recognises that this culture has, historically, been profoundly influenced by Christianity and so decided to explore and detail that history. The way Woodford puts it (“allows him”, “convenient”) makes it sound as though Holland is doing something underhand or deceptive. Or even that he would really like to “defend the more difficult theological assertions”, but cannot and so is choosing an easier way to be a (semi-)apologist.

Throughout his analysis Woodford takes everything Holland says as though he actually is an apologist defending Christianity and making the kinds of claims for it that apologists usually make. But Holland is not doing these things, even if his apologist fans do and even if they use Holland’s arguments to do so. Woodford’s inability to make this important distinction is one reason he manifestly misunderstands Holland’s arguments.

So Woodford states categorically what he understands Holland’s argument to be. He summarises Holland’s claim that key concepts have profoundly Christian roots:

But what concepts exactly? Well, human dignity, moral equality, compassion for the vulnerable and the very idea of progress itself. …. In Holland’s telling these values were revolutionary innovations of Christianity, not natural developments of human social evolution. (7.44 mins)

A little later, referring to one of Holland’s examples of ancient morality being different to ours, he makes the same point:

Holland is claiming that our moral revulsion to infanticide is specifically Christian. Not human. Not evolutionary. Not a product of increasing prosperity or social development. No, it’s specifically Christian. The implication is clear: without Christianity we’d still be tossing babies off cliffs. It’s a bold claim and one that requires extraordinary evidence. So how does he back up this claim of Christianity uniquely introducing empathy and human dignity? (10. 49 mins)

And a minute later he expresses his incredulity at Holland’s position again:

The implication here is startling. Holland is conveying that before Christianity no one valued empathy or recognized human dignity. In fact, he has to be saying this for this argument to land. But, is it true? (11.58 mins)

And so he goes on throughout the video, atrributing to Holland outrageous claims like “all empathy and dignity are Christian inventions” (13.48 mins) before going on to demolish them by showing this is not the case.

But does Holland actually claim these things in his book? Does he say that human dignity, moral equality, compassion for the vulnerable and progress are solely Christian innovations? Does he argue that no one valued human dignity at all before Christianity? Does he really say empathy and human dignity are purely Christian inventions and did not exist before Christianity? Well, no, he does not. This is just how Woodford has chosen to interpret some videos where Holland talks about his book. If he had read the book, he would perhaps have understood the videos better.

Let’s begin with Woodford’s statement that Holland says “before Christianity no one valued empathy or recognized human dignity”. Woodford notes, correctly, that there were expressions of universal compassion and common humanity long before Christianity, primarily in the Buddhist tradition This is very true, but also irrelevant to Holland’s actual argument. What Woodford consistently misses is Holland does not and never has claimed this was unique to Christianity, a Christian innovation or solely invented by Christianity. He is saying, rather, that Christianity is the primary (though not the only) source of these ideas in Western culture and society. So of course they are not unique to Christianity, solely Christian inventions or only able to be derived from Christian theology or belief. Holland says none of these things.

That he is talking purely about Western culture and mores is not exactly hidden. The subtitle of Holland’s book (at least in its non-US editions) is a pretty broad hint: “The Making of the Western Mind”. We know that even though he has not read the book, he has read the title and the subtitle, since he does so in his video. Further, the one and only very lonely quote from the book that Woodford manages to give also makes this clear: “to live in a western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions.” Yes, a western country. Buddhism and Confucianism came up with several of these concepts, but their influence on their centrality in western thought was distant, faint and indirect at best or otherwise extremely recent and so largely irrelevant here. 

That other cultures arrived at similar or even identical concepts is a good counter to the way Holland’s book is used by apologists, certainly. But it does not debunk any of Holland’s actual claims. Woodford has constructed a straw man and then spent most of his video furiously pummeling it into submission.

Similarly, Woodford gets highly agitated about earlier western precursors to these concepts and about more distant but clearly connected non-western ones. He cites the Stoics on universal human dignity, for example:

Stoic philosophers like Seneca advocate universal human dignity and compassion. Seneca wrote “Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for kindness.” (12.28 mins)

How foolish of Holland not to know this and to fail to take account of the Stoics on human dignity! Except, as anyone who has actually bothered to read Holland’s book knows, he actually deals with the Stoics in some detail, discussing exactly this concept.

Almost the whole first third of Dominion – titled “Antiquity” – is about the world before Christianity appeared. In part, this is where Holland highlights how different, rather alien and in many ways repugnant the pre-Christian ancient world appears to us – at least when examined without the rose-tinted lenses preferred by Enlightenment and nineteenth century writers. But it is also substantially setting up the context from which Christianity arose and therefore the influences and precursor elements that shaped it. One of these was the influence of Stoic philosophy. Holland gives an account of the various Greek philosophical traditions and then discusses Stoicism’s contributions:

Nature, the Stoics argued, was itself divine. Animating the entire universe, God was active reason: the Logos. ‘He is mixed with matter, pervading all of it and so shaping it structuring it, and making it into the world.’ To live in accordance with nature, therefore, was to live in accordance with God. Male or female, Greek or barbarian, free or slave, all were equally endowed with the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Syneidesis, the Stoics termed this spark of the divine within every mortal: ‘conscience’. ‘Alone of all creatures alive and treading the earth, it is we who bear a likeness to a god.’ (Holland, p. 27)

Here, Holland notes, is the basis for the Stoic idea of universal humanity. He goes on to detail how the Stoics reconciled this with the fact people often ended up very unequal despite this and their attitudes to human inequality, but he also continues to show how this Stoic conception – more than other, far less egalitarian Greek views of humanity and inequality – had a profound impact on Christianity through its influence on Jewish thought (p. 59) and then on the theology of a particular Jew, Paul.

Paul, in his attempts at understanding and explaining in philosophical terms his belief in Jesus as the Messiah raised from the dead, worked to explain his belief that the salvation of this belief was not purely for Jews:

Paul – as he struggled to define the law that he believed, in the wake of the crucifixion and the resurrection, to be written on the heart of all who acknowledged Christ as Lord – did not hesitate to adapt the teachings of the Greeks. The word he used for it – syneidesis – clearly signalled which philosophers in particular he had in mind. Paul, at the heart of his gospel, was enshrining the Stoic concept of conscience. (Holland, p. 77)

This influence of the Stoic conception of common humanity, direct or indirect, on Paul is not something Holland has imagined. Scholars as far back as Rudolf Bultmann have made the same point, though it has been articulated most extensively and most recently in the work Holland notes in his bibliography: Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s Paul and the Stoics (Knox, 2000). So far from somehow disregarding or carelessly overlooking the Stoic precursor ideas on human equality and dignity, Holland discusses them and shows how they influenced Paul and other early Christian theologians and so helped define this element within Christianity.

This brings us to another of Woodford’s misunderstandings of Holland’s arguments. Because he has convinced himself that Holland claims the Christian ideals he discusses arose purely out of Christianity, he queries how any of these ideals could be wholly and purely Christian since they had to arise out of precursors and influences:

Under this rubric, Christianity itself is merely a product of Judaism, and Judaism is merely a product of polytheistic Canaanite religion. Do we now have to say that everything is in the light of Canaanite religion? (17.11 mins)

But Holland fully acknowledges all kinds of contexts, influences and precursors that shaped Christianity and, as noted above, spends the first third of his book detailing them. So no, Christianity is not “merely” a product of Judaism as Woodford puts it, but Judaism certainly had a significant influence on how it came about and developed. “Polytheistic Canaanite religion” is rather more distant here, but the Zoroastrian cosmology of a dualistic battle between darkness/evil and light/good is not, as Holland discusses (pp. 7-9; 48-50). Similarly, the philosphy of Plato (particularly its later Neoplatonic extensions) and of Aristotle helped shape early Christian thought even more than that of the Stoics. Nowhere does Holland say these elements arose purely and wholly from Christianity – he traces a continuum from pre-Christian thought, through the Christian centuries to the present, with multiple lines of influence in all.

Neither Slave nor Free

Woodford objects strenuously to what he believes to be Holland’s claims about the abolition of slavery. He plays another one of his clips of Holland discussing his book where he talks about the origin of the nineteenth century Abolition Movement (15.37 mins). Here Holland makes some pretty unremarkable observations on the important and specifically Protestant context in which the objections to slavery arose and developed. Woodford objects:

Yet this conveniently ignores the fact that for over the fact that for over 1800 years Christian theologians like Augustine and Aquinas explicitly defended slavery, and that the practice flourished, unchallenged, across Christendom. When Christianity had ‘dominion’ slavery was just fine. They only gave it up when the Enlightenment was on its way. …. When the Abolition movement finally emerged it was profoundly shaped by secular Enlightenment ideals. Emphasising individual liberty, equality and human rights. Ideals that frequently stood in direct opposition to established Christian authorities and traditions. (16.06 mins)

So does Holland foolisly “ignore” all this? Well, no. The various attitudes to slavery, pre-Christian and post-Christian, is something Holland discusses and returns to repeatedly in his book as he traces this theme. Pagan Greco-Roman attitudes to slavery varied, but were mostly fully accepting of it as an institution, even if they themselves definitely did not want to be slaves. Aristotle reflected the dominant pre-Christian view: slavery was completely natural and some people were naturally destined to be enslaved and so … were. Slavery posed more of a problem for the Stoics, who had to reconcile it philosophically with their conception of universal humanity (Aristotle was not so encumbered) and also practically with the fact most Stoics owned slaves (Seneca probably owned thousands). They achieved this by acknowledging slavery as bad, but accepting it as an inevitability – a lamentable necessity to be endured, particularly by the unfortunate slaves.

Awkwardly for Christians, Jesus seemed to also accept it as part of life. Paul, like the Stoics, saw it as a part of the evils of the world that would be swept away with the coming apocalypse. It sat uncomfortably with Christian conceptions of all humans as images of God and equal in his eyes, but they used similar rationales to those of their pagan predecessors to ease their psychological discomfort, with Augustine (and, after him, Aquinas) drawing on Aristotle and on the theological concepts of Original Sin and the Fallen World to justify slavery while lamenting it. Slavery became less economically viable in the Mediterranean world in the Late Roman period, giving way to various forms of vassalage and labour obligation in the Middle Ages. It is interesting that Woodford illustrates his words “when Christianity had ‘dominion’ slavery was just fine” with a medieval illumination of medieval peasants from the Luttrell Psalter (MS Additional 42130, f. 170r). None of the peasants pictured were slaves and even those who were unfree vassals proudly held legal rights and privilages no ancient slave could dream of. But these pesky details do not seem to bother Woodford.

So is Woodford right that slavery was “unchallenged, across Christendom”? Anyone who had, unlike Woodford, actually read Holland’s book would know he is not. As Holland details, the very first person in the ancient (western) world who not only lamented slavery as an evil but also condemned it as an institution and advocated its abolition was … a Christian. Gregory of Nyssa, the fourth century Cappadocian bishop from a family of bishops and saints, was very clear on the matter:

Gregory was moved by the existence of slavery not just to condemn the extremes of wealth and poverty, but to define the institution itself as an unpardonable offence against God. Human nature, so he preached, had been constituted by its Creator as something free. As such, it was literally priceless. ‘Not all the universe would constitute an adequate payment for the soul of a mortal.’ (Holland, p. 124)

Holland goes on to make it clear that Gregory was a radical exception and that basically all of his contemporaries and theological successors found ways, like Augustine, to reconcile slavery with their faith.

Because Holland has a grasp of historiography somewhat above high school-level, he knows that complex social movements are not monocausal and are the result of a confluence of influences and inputs. So his discussion of the origins and process of the Abolition Movement notes a variety of currents – economic, social, political and, yes, religious – that came together to give rise to this development. He is fully aware of the influence of the Enlightenment philosophes, as well as earlier ideas about liberty and rights – his discussion of Abolition comes, after all, in a chapter he called “Enlightenment”.

But, as he says in the clip Woodford shows, the most significant motivation for Abolition was initially religious. He details how the irascible Quaker, Benjamin Lay, came to the same conclusions as Gregory of Nyssa fourteen centuries earlier and laid the foundations of the acceptance of Abolition first by his fellow Quakers and then by the Evangelical movement in the late eighteenth century. That they were resisted by other Christians is not something Holland “ignores”, but – yet again – something he discusses (e.g. p. 368). And while the (somewhat contradictory) musings on the subject by the thinkers of the Enlightenment had an influence, no excited crowds raced from a philosophical salon or learned discussion in a London coffee shop to demand an end to slavery. But plenty did so after leaving a Quaker prayer meeting or Evangelical movement. It was these people that made Abolitionism a mass movement in England and, eventually, in the United States. When the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Castlereagh, returned to London after signing the Treaty of Paris on eradicating the slave trade, he was met with remarkable public protests at some concessions made to French slave merchants:

[A]n unprecedented campaign of protest had swept Britain. Petitions on a scale never before witnessed had deluged Parliament. A quarter of all those eligible to sign them had added their names. Never before had the mass of the British public committed themselves so manifestly to a single issue. It had become for them, the French Foreign Minister noted in mingled bemusement and disdain, ‘a passion carried to fanaticism, and one which the ministry is no longer at liberty to check’. (Holland p.394)

This mass of people were motivated by several influences, but the primary one was religious fervor. Of course, the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and rights were also in the air and this is acknowledged by Holland, who notes “twin traditions of Britain and France, of Benjamin Lay and Voltaire, of enthusiasts for the Spirit and enthusiasts for reason, had joined in amity”. (p. 395-6) Once again, something that Woodford claims Holland “ignores’ is not only not ignored, but discussed with far greater knowledge, nuance and sophistication than a blunderer like Woodford could ever manage to muster.

Similarly, Woodford claims Holland “fails to address” other subjects that he addresses, in detail and with great care.

Holland also consistently fails to address an obvious question: if Christianity inherently opposes practices like misogyny and slavery then why did explicitly Christian societies not only practice but also defend these actions for millennia? (17.26)

Woodford goes on to list other things along these lines that Holland does not address or explain, including witch burnings, pogroms and Crusades. But, once again, the issue here lies purely in Woodford’s misunderstanding of Holland’s arguments. He never says that Christianity “inherently” opposes these things, simply that several of its ideals and principles ran counter to them and that these ideals have come to dominate western thinking. He discusses all the things Woodford lists, as even a cursory glance at his book’s index and bibliography shows. Because he does not claim these principles are inherent, what Woodford claims he “fails” to do here is not required of his argument. He is not, despite Woodford’s consistent misapprehension, arguing like a Christian apologist.

So Woodford’s pummelling of his straw man gets especially frenzied as he brings what he thinks is his counter argument to its denoument. The atrocities and historical stains of Christianity that Woodford says Holland must account for are, we are told, dismissed by Holland as not “true Christianity” (18.31 mins). But Holland never says this anywhere. Woodford assures us with great vigor that:

Positive moral developments in Christian societies are always credited directly to Christianity. While negative actions, however widespread or entrenched, are dismissed as unfortunate aberrations. (18.37 mins)

Where does Holland do this? We are not told. Woodford’s straw man has now become a ventriloquist’s dummy, saying things that Woodford imagines but which Holland simply never says. All contact with anything related to Holland’s actual arguments have now been totally lost – Woodford is now just making crap up.

The Ghost Army of Historians

So by this point in his video Woodford has carefully constructed a straw man out of some videos he did not understand about a book he did not bother to read and then vigorously beaten it into submission, leaving Holland’s actual arguments unscathed. Then he explains to the listener why Holland got everything so wrong: “Tom Holland has no formal training in academic history whatsoever.” (20.50 mins). Here he invokes none other than (yes, him again) the inevitable Richard Carrier.

Back in April 2019 anti-religion zealot and (as he reminds us constantly) holder of a history doctorate from Columbia University, Richard Carrier, wrote one of his blog pieces titled “No, Tom Holland, It Wasn’t Christian Values That Saved the West”. Like Woodford, Carrier had not read Holland’s book, but unlike Woodford he had an excuse: it had not yet been published. He was responding to a pre-publication article by Holland in The Spectator called “Thank God for western values” (20 April, 2019 – paywalled). Much like Woodford, Carrier jumped to a number of largely wrong conclusions about what Holland’s arguments might be and so wasted a lot of time arguing against things Holland does not say. Despite this, he characteristically congratulates himself in advance, declaring with typical modesty “I’ve already refuted Holland’s entire thesis”, linking to several of his blog posts and book chapters in atheist polemics, all of which are actually irrelevant.

Carrier also does not exactly inspire confidence in the reading comprehension skills of a Columbia graduate. With his usual maturity, finesse and charm he comments:

Holland’s following implication that Christian music (specifically, the lamest kind: church bells chiming) is “prettier” than Muslim’s singing (or even the Arabic language) is pretty much just imperialist pap. I don’t even agree. Perhaps because I’m not an imperialist dick.

Except it is not Holland who says he prefers Christian church bells to a Muslim muezzin’s call to prayer, it is actually Richard Dawkins. Holland simply quotes Dawkins saying so to illustrate how even an arch-atheist can be a cultural Christian. Carrier does not read very carefully.

Woodford seems to find him authoritative enough despite this kind of blunder and quotes him saying “Tom Holland never studied history at a tertiary level”. Except this is not actually a quote from Carrier’s blog post. As far as I can find it is actually from another atheist blogger, Neil Godfrey, talking about Holland and Carrier’s blog piece about him. Why Woodford has such trouble correctly attributing quotes is a mystery.

That aside, here is what Carrier actually does say about Holland’s qualifications:

Holland is another amateur playing at knowing what he’s talking about. He has no degrees in history, and no advanced degrees whatever. He has a bachelors in English and Latin poetry. He dabbled in getting a Ph.D. in Byron but gave up. No shame in that; but it still doesn’t qualify you to talk about ancient history, or even medieval.

Woodford assures us that noting this is not “gatekeeping or claiming that only those with specific credentials can contribute to historical understanding” (21.03 mins). He argues that Holland’s background explains both the (imagined) flaws in Holland’s arguments and much of his appeal to readers, noting “he’s a gifted literary storyteller whose historical interpretations frequently diverge dramatically from mainstream scholarship.” (20.20 mins)

And here is where he makes an even more dramatic declaration:

When academic historians evaluate Holland’s work they consistently identify the same methodological approaches that we’ve already witnessed. (21.29 mins)

He then lists the terrible methodological flaws that these academic historians “consistently” identify, namely:

• Cherry picking evidence
• Source-critical weakness
• Oversimplification
• Neglecting parallel developments

This is an interesting development. After all, Woodford has just spent 20 minutes criticising a book he has not read, making arguments against things that Holland does not say. But if he is now going to cite and quote academic historians who have critiqued Holland’s book and detail the flaws they have found in it, perhaps we are finally going to get some substance. After all, unlike cocky YouTubers, academic historians would not be so stupid as to go public with criticisms about a book they did not bother to read. So we would expect Woodford to name these historians, cite their reviews, quote from them and detail their criticisms.

But he … does not. At all.

He lists the methodological flaws noted above, but supports them not with the “academic historians” he just invoked, but by reference to the arguments that he himself made in the previous 20 minutes of the video. Like Aragorn in the Paths of the Dead, Woodford summons this mighty ghost army of historians, only for them to immediately fade away without a single word, like smoke on the wind.

As it happens, most reviews of Dominion have been very positive. More importantly and relevant here, most reviews by historians have been favourable. Peter Frankopan and Dairmaid MacCulloch, both of Oxford University and neither of whom are exactly minor figures in history writing, gave glowing pre-publication praise for the book. On publication, Yale’s Samuel Moyn gave it a good review in the Financial Times (“Dominion by Tom Holland — how Christianity shaped our world“,  September 13, 2019 – paywalled). So did Oxford’s Peter Thonemann in the Wall Street Journal (“‘Dominion’ Review: The Christian Revolution”, November 1, 2019 – paywalled) and Baylor Univerisity’s Philip Jenkins in Christianity Today (“Christianity’s Influence on World History Is Real but Easily Overstated”, February 3 2020). All of these scholars make criticisms and express some reservations, but this is what academic reviewers do. Other historians were more critical. Independent historian Jonathan Sumption was much less convinced in The Spectator (“Did Christianity make the western mind — or was it the other way round?” 31 August 2019 – paywalled), and Andrews University’s Gerard De Groot in The Times was very negative, though given he is a specialist in the modern era and has some known anti-Christian animus his opinion carries rather less weight here (“Dominion by Tom Holland review — are we all children of the Christian revolution?”, August 23, 2019 – paywalled).

So do these reviews support Woodford’s assertion that “academic historians” find Holland’s thesis to “diverge[s] dramatically from mainstream scholarship”? No, they do not. Nor do they support his claims that they “consistently identify the same methodological approaches” that Woodford thinks he found while beating up his straw man. Some make some criticisms, most praise the book and a couple are varying degrees of unconvinced. So, pretty much like most solid books of thematic history.

Given Woodford seems to prefer videos to reading books, it is perhaps a pity he does not seem to have watched my interview with Tom Holland about his book (Interview: Tom Holland on “Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind”). In it I ask Holland about some of the criticisms his detractors have made and he answers with typical breadth and detail. Towards the end of our conversation he makes an interesting observation. He refers to the Huxley/Wilberforce debate about Darwinism at Oxford in 1860:

Ultimately, Huxley doesn’t have a problem with the fact that he’s an ape; it’s not an issue for him. Wilberforce does, because he’s a believer. If you’re an atheist, it doesn’t matter that … ideologically you’re shaped by Christianity. I don’t see what the issue is. (1:04.31 mins)

This is true. Holland is not saying the elements he highlights are wholly Christian in origin, or that these things are necessarily unique to Christianity, or that they automatically follow or proceed from Christianity. He is simply saying their normality in western culture derives predominantly or primarily from the inheritance of Christianity. To have a problem with this is about as silly as being bothered by being descended from common ancestors with the apes.

So, overall, Woodford’s video is a failure. He misunderstands Holland’s argument, wastes his time arguing against things Holland does not say, claims Holland ignores things that he actually discusses in detail, with genuine nuance and sophistication, and then grandly invokes anonymous historians without telling us who they are. Obviously, no book of this thematic breadth is going to convince everyone and it certainly cannot be without flaws or strained arguments in places. That is not how history can ever work. There are, of course, legitimate criticisms that could be made by well-informed critics. But Woodford makes none of them and is definitely not an informed critic. This is partly because his reading in history is stunted, superficial and clearly not very extensive. But it is mainly because he did not even bother to read the fucking book. “Rationality rules”? Hardly.