I think there are 3 enduring appeals of Christianity that have a deep intuitive appeal to us: (1) the mystical philosophy that embraces love and wisdom, (2) the idea that idea that we are 'sons of God' - spirits in flesh, and (3) that life in the physical world is suffering (in the Buddhist sense too), but by aiming true (not sinning) release into the spiritual realm is available to us. That's not bad from a person who professes not to be 'Christian'. But in fact, if the Jesus story has merit, we are all "Christian" in deed, if not in word.
Yes to (1) and (2). Not so sure about (3). Maybe I'd put it that life inevitably
involves suffering, but that living it with faith in transcendence, and avoiding harming oneself or others (not
sinning) offers the best chance for that transcendence (
redemption in Christian terms). But motivation is important; it's more than avoiding sin through fear of hell or hope for heaven. That's not entirely bad for society as a whole, but lacks the integrity for individual redemption, where the idea is that one shouldn't do good and avoid evil simply through fear or hope, but because one sincerely believes it's the
right thing to do. And in that, even some atheists are every bit as "Christian" as some who would consciously call themselves such.
Modern day materialists are struggling with explaining morality. However, it's incredibly difficult to do that in materialistic terms; people like Sam Harris nonetheless try:
But where does Sam Harris' set of values come from? Why is he appalled by some things and not others? Why is he even trying to explain morality in materialistic terms? One could be cynical and say that it's because, subconsciously, he doesn't want to admit that he's been brought up with Christian values, and it's those rather than any objectively true innate "facts" that have helped generate his morality.
The irony is, the esoteric view is that it is a fact that there is a universal objective truth in the value of morality. If he thought about it, he might realise he's a perennialist without acknowledging it.
He even practises meditation in the Buddhist style (without accepting the underlying Buddhist philosophy)
as does Susan Blackmore (who blames everything on memes). They're having their cake and eating it -- being gurus without a God or higher power.
Harris thinks mysticism is rational (this is an interesting take from someone one might think would be on his side) and that's how he attempts to eliminate the woo. But if it is rational, whence comes rationality? Is he just transferring the source of morality from something he's unwilling to countenance to something he is, and to express that (probably subconsciously) in terms that are more acceptable to him, and -- he hopes -- to fellow materialists? Like a contortionist, is he bending over backwards to try to avoid a conclusion that morality arises out of an inbuilt universal propensity to evolve, to grow and develop?
I believe that morality allows MAL through its alters (or put another way, Brahman through Atman, Father through Son) to come to know itself most efficiently and effectively. I'd say that immorality makes it harder or practically impossible to overcome the inertia it creates in the system.
I don't want to over-criticise Harris: I suspect he's only a smidgen away from true perennialism, only failing in the way he's casting his ideas so as to avoid the woo he finds so problematic. He may get there in the end, who knows.