Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

[NeilC]

None of it... it is DESPITE Christianity.

evidence? reasoning?

 

[linusrichard]

Dawkins' attempt at pandering is as transparent as was the "Compassionate Conservatism" of a few years back.

Typical Dawkins, trying not to offend anyone with his comments...

Until he publicly proclaims Jesus the Christ as his own, personal Lord and Saviour, then he is no Christian of any kind.

I don't know where you're pulling this requirement of a public proclamation, but I agree with your basic point - Dawkins is no Christian.

The thing is, I don't think he's claiming to be a Christian. He's claiming to be a cultural Christian, and I don't think it makes sense to consider a "Cultural Christian" to be a type of Christian, and while I obviously can't speak for Dawkins, based on the article quoted, I don't think he'd disagree.

I (also no Christian) certainly consider myself to be a cultural Christian as well. I'm guessing a lot of atheists who were raised in the Christian West would agree.

Merry Christmas!

 

[linusrichard]

I also understand the fear that many Christians feel over the secularization of "their" holidays when people say X-mas, Rabbit Day, or Turkey Day. I think this fear is well-founded; whenever I hear someone say that "Season's Greetings" isn't secularizing the Christmas season, I say bull****, that's why I use the phrase "Season's Greetings." Maybe in fifty years, X-mas will be as X-ian as Halloween (in fact, I think many of them boycott Halloween). That would be kind of nice. I'll take people dressed up as sexy santa's over crucifixes and mangers any day of the year.

Well, with respect to Christmas and Easter, it's a little hypocritical for the Christians to be whining about it. The holidays currently known as Christmas and Easter are a lot older than Christianity. Christians took them and twisted them around, and now the secularists are doing the same thing. Sauce for the gander. Hell, they (the English-speaking ones) didn't even bother to rename Easter - it's still named after a pagan goddess! So while each winter we have to put up with Christians whining, "keep the Christ in Christmas," I look forward to the spring and telling people to "keep the Eostre in Easter."

As for Thanksgiving, I never considered it a religious holiday. I realize that it has religious roots, unfortunately, but one thing I've always loved about it is that there's no reason it can't be completely secular. I have no problem feeling thankful for the good things in my life without having some Deity to thank.

 

[JoeEllison]

evidence? reasoning?

The evidence of history. Things like the Enlightenment advanced freedom, not Christianity. Christianity has stood in the way of progress... and then dishonest Christians take credit for the progress, in their arrogance and cultural bigotry.

 

[NeilC]

You can't cite "history" as evidence!

 

[JoeEllison]

You can't cite "history" as evidence!

If you'd like to start a new thread on it, feel free. I'm done with my hijack of this thread. Sorry everyone.

 

[NeilC]

I don't think discussing what christian culture actually might be is particularly off-topic given the title of the thread.

It's a bit limiting if all we are talking about is the name for Christmas.

 

[Big Les]

I don't think you can say all cultural benefits gleaned in the last 1500 years or so are despite Christianity. Religion has been an inextricable part of the human experience since before the beginning of history - at least some of the good we have today is down to people who were at least in part inspired by their faith, no matter how misguided we perceive that today. Sure, the motivation could have been humanism or anything else, but it wasn't (in those cases). Call it historical accident if you like, but those people were christians, and their faith was part of how they saw the world. IOW, what happened happened, and it happened in some part because of Christianity.

This is not to say that we can't (or haven't already begun to) replace it with something as good in terms of positive cultural contributions.

 

[H3LL]

I don't think you can say all cultural benefits gleaned in the last 1500 years or so are despite Christianity.

Maybe not all, but...

In the British Isles (Dawkins' home), the decline of authoritarian institutions such as the church is, IMHO, the very essence of our cultural heritage.

Casting off of Papal power and the ushering in of enlightenment, reason, science and open atheism didn't occur since the 17th century by accident and were demonstrably despite the desires and efforts of religious powers.

There are key events in our history; the reformation, decline of feudalism, agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, parliamentary reform, age of reason, rise of atheism.

Each one of them charts its battle with the established power of religion.

Each one of them has its iconic example of attempts, by religion, to prevent its expansion.

Those key events, and others represent my cultural history.

The church and religion represent opposition to progress all along the way and a sick ability to claim responsibility and ride the band-waggon when inevitable change is established.

I disagree with Dawkins, on this point, quite strongly.

If he was in a modern Muslim theocracy, yes, he could claim to be a "cultural Muslim" as their history and culture, for the last several hundred years, is dominated by religious culture and the repression of all else.

That is demonstrably NOT the case in the British Isles.



Pretty songs, nice art and festivals usurped from indigenous cultures do not excuse in any way.

The Christians have taught us well how to usurp cultural and religious identity and masquerade it as their own.

Maybe now it is time for religion to taste the bitter pill of its own teachings with all national festivals becoming secular and open to all. Any religious identity stripped away.

.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I know...I did.

As most of those "Christian traditions" as practised today owe more to the Victorians than to anything biblical.

Even in Germany?

How is St Niklaus a Victorian trope?

Even in Russia? How is Babushka a Victorian trope?

I will hazard a guess: your comment is Brit centric, given you and Dawkins both being Brits. Am I close?

DR

 

[H3LL]

Even in Germany?

How is St Niklaus a Victorian trope?

Even in Russia? How is Babushka a Victorian trope?

I will hazard a guess: your comment is Brit centric, given you and Dawkins both being Brits. Am I close?

DR

Is Dawkins a German or a Russian?

Is the OP about Dawkins' words or Hans Petrovsky's?

Is Dawkins' culture likely to be Russian, German or British?

Victorian relates to a time period. You can buy American Victorian furniture in New York. Was Victoria Queen of the USA?

"New Yankee Workshop" often teaches us how to make "traditional New England Victorian furniture". Is Norm Abram ignorant of American furniture history?

I'll match your word spaghetti with my knowledgeable noodles.

.

 

[rob_hebert]

To answer NeilC, I think there is a lot more to being culturally [insert religion here] than just what you call holidays. It gets a bit hairy since religions can be just as amorphous as other institutions, and their effects on the greater culture can be hard to pin down.

I would give as one example the fact that for most of history, and obviously right now, Christianity relied heavily on conversion of non-believers (either peacefully or by the sword). Perhaps this had something to do with the imperialist actions of (Christianized) Britain and other countries? Maybe not, since Persia wasn't Christian, and neither was Greece. Neither was Rome, for that matter, until after they had basically taken over the world. I don't think it's as simple as assigning characteristics to Christianity or other religions and then seeing where they predominate. That might lead to circular logic.

I'm probably more cynical than some on this topic, since I think many of the injustices of Christianity, for example, would have been carried out under another banner had the Church not been around. Human suffering certainly predates the common era, although that shouldn't give anyone a "pass" on some the messed up stuff that's gone down. Either way, it's difficult to determine causality in matters of history and culture.

Anyway, to get back to your question, I think a good example might be the civil rights movement in 20th century America. It started in the Baptist churches of the south, and drew heavily on the story of Moses' deliverance of the Jews from Egypt. Now, I'm the first to say that anyone who critically reads the Bible will see a book that is distinctively pro-slavery. But that specific story was a rallying point for many black Americans, since it was a shared myth that many could relate to. I firmly believe the ideals of the civil rights movement are not Biblical, but that doesn't mean the trappings of the Bible culture of the time weren't useful toward very noble ends. So I don't think it would be fair to say that the civil rights succeeded because of the Christian culture, but it definitely succeeded with its aid. I think this is a good example of a nonreligious or secular idea (civil rights) coming out, in part, of a specifically Biblical culture.

note: I'm sure I'll have to clarify some of this, but the post is already pretty long.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. "If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh?

Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

 

[joobz]

I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. "If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh?

Hi T'ai, thank you for this example, because it perfectly illustrates his point.

American Government was established with the concept of a seperation of church and state. I could go through all of the examples of this being the case, but it is quite obvious when you read the constitution.

However, during the Mccarthy era red scare, christian legislatures felt the need to replace the rather socialist sounding motto, "E Pluribus Unum" to "In god we trust." Indeed, your point is a perfect example of a religion attempting to purge our nation of one of it's primary tenents, keeping religion and government seperate.

 

[Big Les]

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh?

Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

Even if he wanted to cast off all references to Christianity in his life (which would be rather difficult), he doesn't have any choice in what he describes as "cultural christianity". Christianity is our state religion, its artefacts and traditions are still embedded just about everywhere we look. The only way to reject one's inherited cultural religious baggage would be refuse to participate in every majority celebration or commemoration.

It's perfectly possible to have a christmas tree and open presents with your family, whether or not any of them are christians, and still be an atheist. That's all he seems to be saying. In fact, in a way he's acknowledging what the christians often cry - "this is a christian country!". Acknowledging, but not believing, and not giving religious belief and dogma itself any quarter in his articles, books, lectures and TV shows. Sounds consistent enough to me.

Consider ecclesiastical architecture - one can visit and appreciate the beauty of a cathedral and the history behind it, and also wish that it continues to be maintained, without actually worshipping in it.

 

[linusrichard]

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh?

Is that motto on UK currency as well? That's surprising. In any event, the people doing that in the US are not trying to "purge our country of its Christian history," but remove theism from its inappropriate place in government. Even if you oppose the latter, it's dishonest to pretend people are doing the former.

ETA: And, as Joobz has helpfully pointed out - we've had more history without "In God We Trust" than we've had with it. Rather than purging history, think of the atheists as trying to restore it.

Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

Okay - do you understand what Dawkins is talking about? Two things, if you do: (1) What do you think would be a better word or phrase to describe what Dawkins is talking about than "Cultural Christian," and (2) what ought the phrase "Cultural Christian" mean, if not what Dawkins is talking about?

I could swear I had heard the phrase "Cultural Jew" before, and the meaning was instantly obvious to me: someone who doesn't necessarily hold any Jewish religious beliefs, but was raised immersed in a Jewish culture, which has had some influence on traditions, values, tastes, etc. Are you (along with Fnord, I'd wager) simply annoyed that someone who does not believe on the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has the gall to describe himself with a phrase of the form "[modifier] Christian"? If so, get over it - Christians have done such a good job inflicting Christianity on most of the West that now it's become a cultural background noise, and non-Christian Cultural Christians do exist, despite your protestations. Dawkins is one and I'm one. Merry Christmas.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Is that motto on UK currency as well? That's surprising.

The comment refers to Newdown or whatever his name is in the US. You do know there are atheists in the US, right?

But, from Wikipedia

All current [UK] coins include the Latin inscription ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR in abbreviated form, which means "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith", with Elizabeth II facing to the right.

So yeah, it is related. Moving on.

In any event, the people doing that in the US are not trying to "purge our country of its Christian history," but remove theism from its inappropriate place in government.

You're really telling me that putting a message on coins (that is based on our heritage) inflicts harm on people? Better give away all your money then!

Why isn't Newdown or whatever his name is winning his cases? Must be some conspiracy.

And, as Joobz has helpfully pointed out - we've had more history without "In God We Trust" than we've had with it. Rather than purging history, think of the atheists as trying to restore it.

Well this argument doesn't make much sense, in fact, it seems to say 'hey, don't make any progress at all'. There's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center, and probably no time in history of the world where atheists have been a majority. How can they be "restoring history" when those facts are staring them in the face?

Okay - do you understand what Dawkins is talking about? Two things, if you do: (1) What do you think would be a better word or phrase to describe what Dawkins is talking about than "Cultural Christian," and (2) what ought the phrase "Cultural Christian" mean, if not what Dawkins is talking about?

I'm not sure you really get his argument. I mean, he's an atheist saying he is some type of Christian, but only to mean 'I like some of the things you Christians like'. It is talking out of both sides of his mouth, like to not lose a possible fan base or something.

From Wiki, the term means

Cultural Christian is a broad term describing individuals who identify themselves as Christian, but who generally would not be described by other, more religious Christians, as active in their faith.

But hey, maybe he is: http://richarddawkins.net/images/atheistsForJesus.jpg

Biologists should stick to biology. Outside of their sphere they get a lil' lost.

 

[joobz]

T'ai, you give an example that proves Dawkin's point and when presented this information you say:

Well this argument doesn't make much sense, in fact, it seems to say 'hey, don't make any progress at all'. There's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center, and probably no time in history of the world where atheists have been a majority. How can they be "restoring history" when those facts are staring them in the face?

Please attempt at writing a lucid statement next time. THere is no coherent argument here. The only thing here is a obvious attempt at trying to stir the atheist pot as it were.

DO you actually have any argument that will counter the claim that the change of our national motto in the 1950s from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In god we trust" wasn't an example of religion attempting to encroach onto a territory it wasn't supposed to be (the U.S government)?

I'm not sure you really get his argument. I mean, he's an atheist saying he is some type of Christian, but only to mean 'I like some of the things you Christians like'. It is talking out of both sides of his mouth, like to not lose a possible fan base or something.

I do not think you get his argument. In fact, I know you don't understand his point at all.

Religion is an expression of the culture that it sprang from. Have you ever noticed how you'll have Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian orthodox, Albanian Orthodox, Bulgarian orthodox, macedonian orthodox...
Why do they have a country/cultural designation before each one?
Ever see a Roman catholic philippine wedding, or a Roman Catholic American wedding? There are many differences that exist between them that are culturally determined and have nothing to do with the religion. If that is possible, why couldn't the reverse be possible? That you partake in the cultural trappinigs that the religion has but don't actually believe in the religion.

Your only (rather transparent) argument here is that you dislike Dawkins and will attempt to ridicule every statement he makes. If your goal is to find fault with Dawkins, I suggest holding your peace until he actually says something that can be made fun of*.


*please note that I'm not really a dawkins fan. I simply don't see anything wrong with what he said in this instance.

 

[Big Les]

T'ai seems to be choosing not to understand a very simple concept and attributing it a significance that it doesn't deserve. Let's try again;

"Cultural" means of or pertaining to culture.
"Christian" refers to the religion of that name.

Because religion is historically and contemporaneously pretty all-pervading, most cultures are still imbued with a lot of history and tradition from whichever are their state religion(s). Therefore no matter how fervently you or I may wish it were otherwise, the MAJORITY of people born in the UK are "cultural" Christians by default. Dawkins is simply acknowledging this state of affairs, and saying that taking part in celebrations that have most recently been influenced by christianity, is perfectly consistent with his atheism.

What is so hard to understand?

 

[Henners]

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh?

Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

I think that you'll find that Dawkins uses currency that claims (DEF) that his monarch is the Head of the Church, God's representative on the planet, and that representatives of that church have votes in his parliament.

The poor bugger is a "Cultural Christian" whether he likes it or not, and there are a heck of a lot of us.