Culturally Christian? Christian atheist too
By Mark Vernon on Wednesday, December 12 2007, 11:13 - In the news - Permalink
Richard Dawkins has confessed (I think again) to being culturally Christian. Moreover, he doesn't want to get rid of Christmas traditions, believing that other religions are the threat there, and likes singing carols.
On the last confession, I am always bemused by people who go to church for the singing. It's the worst part as far as I can see, not least since it so often requires voicing the poorest of ecclesiastical words. I suppose some Christmas carols are more successful as poetry than many hymns.
On the not wanting to get rid of traditions, and believing other religions not atheists are the threat. All the polls show that people of other faiths like it when Christianity is promoted in the UK since it lends standing to faith in general. The story of Jesus is in the Koran, too. So perhaps a little mischief making there in Dawkins' comment, or a little more ignorance about religion.
The deeper and philosophically interesting point, missed in the comments, is the possibility that Dawkins is not only culturally Christian, he's a Christian atheist too. For example, he believes we are like the animals bar being able 'to rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators'. Note the 'rebel' against nature. It's straight out of the story of Adam and Eve. As far as I know, the concept doesn't exist outside of Judeo-Christian religion.
Similarly the effort to reconcile scientific materialism with free will, hard line Darwinism being deterministic. This is a Reformation concern. It was only then that the issue of free will became so crucial, people having to be free to choose their salvation. Before free will was a marginal philosophical concern, it being fairly obvious when you think about it that we are free in some respects, influenced by all sorts of factors in others, and able to become conscious of at least some of them, of course.
Then there's the belief that if you show something to be an illusion, it will disappear, as the 'subtraction' account of secularisation teaches. In fact, that feels not only Christian but Protestant, resting on the notion that your confession of faith, or none, is what matters most. (Confession of faith being different from practice of faith which is the more common marker of religious belonging and salvation.)
Perhaps Dawkins would say he was Christian atheist if asked. He'd increase the column/blog inches again, since, of course, that implies his atheism is not truth in black and white, but is coloured in a certain way. Relative, in other words - another charge that troubles the doctrinally-minded. Look at the Pope!
By the way, if you just can't get enough of this, I'm talking with John Cornwell tomorrow evening, 6.30pm, at the Waterstones on Gower Street, London, about After Atheism.
Comments
"On the not wanting to get rid of traditions, and believing other religions not atheists are the threat. All the polls show that people of other faiths like it when Christianity is promoted in the UK since it lends standing to faith in general."
That's probably irrelevant though - the reason nativity plays often seem to get secularised is because of local government concerns that other faith groups will be offended. Whether that fear is justified is beside the point but that is the reason the media typically gives (and even that assumes that media reporting is accurate in the first place and there even is an issue here). I think Dawkins is probably correct - I wouldn't have thought for a second that atheism or secularism even enters into the question.
I do recall a Bertrand Russell essay on protestant and catholic atheism, so the idea isn't new.
We are all deluded about some things maybe many things. We get into bad habits that go out of control, and then we become self-contradictory. For example, I take skim milk in my coffee, but eat masses of fat in my daily diet, like those delicious cakes they serve as desserts ??" usually after having a salad for the main course. I have become so used to skim milk that I no longer ask myself the reason for it, and instead of extending the principle of healthy eating to my overall diet, I have compartmentalized a small part of my diet to assuage my guilt at not having a healthy diet.
We can all become delusional at any time when we lose focus or through sheer human error. There have been so many times when I have made a brilliant sacrifice at chess only to find it was a brilliant mistake. The sacrificial move seemed to make sense before I played it, but during the course of the game it unraveled. Was I deluded? Or merely unable to capitalize on my position?
There is a phenomena know in the stockmarket as predisposition when a person will hold on to losers when they should be selling them, because they feel emotionally responsible for the loss and dont want to let go. People generally dislike incurring losses much more than they enjoy making gains; when they make a gain they feel it is good luck, but when they make a loss, they feel they were somehow responsible. They dont connect the two different attitudes together.
Worse still they do this in their total investments. Instead of maximizing their utility, to use the conventional economic language, they compartmentalize certain investments ??"Economics is a cold calculating science; it would consider holding on to losers as pure sentimentality.
What is more, it tends to be males who make these delusional errors, not females who some sexists could accuse of being more intuitive and less calculating.
Which brings me back to Dawkins. Is Dawkins himself deluded? On the question of atheism, I would say no. But as far as other parts of his intellectual and emotional existence ??" undoubtedly yes. Like all the rest of us, he suffers from the limitations of being a human being.
"On the last confession, I am always bemused by people who go to church for the singing. It's the worst part as far as I can see, not least since it so often requires voicing the poorest of ecclesiastical words."
see now, only a (former) believer could say that because as someone who has always been on the apathetic christian/agnostic/borderline athestic spectrum, i've never paid all that much attention to the words, but have always been able to appreciate the musical qualities of hymns/carols (although not all hymns and carols, i hasten to add)
plus there are very few occasions in life when people come together to sing in unison in significant numbers and i wager that is another appeal for christmas church service going population