Richard Dawkins Calls Himself A "Cultural Christian"

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Richard Dawkins Calls Himself A "Cultural Christian"

Posted Dec 31st 2007 2:07PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, History, Controversy, Atheism

Asked by a British member of Parliament if he is one of those atheists who wants to get rid of Christian symbols especially during the Christmas season, atheist Richard Dawkins replied that he is not. Dawkins said that he himself sings Christmas carols and that he considers himself a "cultural Christian." Just as many Jews regard themselves as Jewish, defend Jewish interests and cherish Jewish culture while not participating in Jewish religious rituals, Dawkins says that he respects the fact that the history and traditions of the West are shaped by Christianity. Dawkins says he's not one of those who wants to purge the West of its Christian traditions. The main threat to Christian symbols, Dawkins argues, does not come from atheists like him but rather from Muslims and members of other faiths.

Now this is quite remarkable. In The God Delusion, Dawkins portrayed the Christian God as a wicked, avaricious, capricious, genocidal maniac. Dawkins even blasted Jesus for such offenses as speaking harshly to his mother. Yet if the Jewish and Christian God was such a monster, what sense does it make for Dawkins to embrace the cultural influence of that deity? It would be like someone saying, "Hitler was a murderous maniac, but I am a cultural Nazi. No, I don't embrace the specifics of Nazi doctrine, but I appreciate what fascism has done to shape German culture. Let's give up the specifics of the Hitler program, but let's also keep Nazi culture along with the fuhrer's imagery on our coins and monuments."

Dawkins is not an unintelligent man, so what's going on here? One possibility is that Dawkins now recognizes that today's atheists who want to get rid of Christian symbols are just as intolerant as Christians who in the pst sought to deny atheists a voice in the public arena. So Dawkins' statement can be read as a critique of intolerance and political correctness.

A second possibility is that Dawkins now sees the Muslim threat to the West--and especially European culture--as more serious than the prospect of a second Christian Inquisition, so he has decided to ally with the Christians against the Islamic radicals. Other atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are now admitting that atheist attempts to equate Islamic extremism with Christianity are bogus. The real threat doesn't come from Presbyterianism or Anglicanism but from a radical Islam that wants to obliterate Western civilization.

I suspect that these two factors may have played a role, but the main reason for Dawkins' remarkable self-identification as a cultural Christian is that he has slowly come to realize that even the values that he cherishes--values such as individual dignity, science as an autonomous enterprise, the equal dignity of women, the abolition of slavery, and compassion as a social virtue--came into the West because of Christianity. I have been hammering this point in my debates with leading atheists, and it's possible that one of the Oxford historians came up to Dawkins and said, to his horror, "You know, Richard, that D'Souza chap has a point."

Okay, so let's give this biologist credit for learning a little history. Still, the deeper question remains. If the God of the Old and New Testaments is such a bad character, how come his cultural influence is so positive? Absent a good answer to this question, we must reconsider the premise: perhaps the God of the Old and New Testaments is not the evil figure portrayed in atheist propaganda. On the contrary, perhaps all our Western notions of good and bad derive from no source other than this Christian God. This certainly was Nietzsche's view, and he knew a lot more about the subject than Richard Dawkins. Wouldn't it be interesting if Dawkins continues his intellectual growth and reverses his old misunderstandings? Then he can reissue his book: Overcoming My Delusions: Confessions of a Cultural Christian.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [842]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 57)

Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

61. ATHEIST

Reply to: You know, there is a great deal of science to disprove the theory of evolution (i.e., the human eye, flagellum) but many atheists don't want to acknowledge any of it, Emily
________________

Emily, there is a tremendous amount of information about Evolutionary Theory.

READ some of it.

I'm tired of dimwit Christians posting, "If I can't understand how it works, then there isn't any evidence."

You've read a LIE on a website. You keep repeating it. that's how christianity continues.
________________

Reply to: because it might prove the bible to be true, which would make the Christian God real. Emily

Emily, please, enough with the NONSENSE.

The Christian Bible is about a ghost who appeared in a garden to his girlfriend. An Exorcist who commaned invisible demonic spirits.

NOTHING in the structure of the human eye will ever prove that invisible demonic spirits exist.

Duh.

Duh, Emily. Duh, duh, duh. enough with the silly Christian babble.
____________

EMILY: The fact is, there are no facts of evolution, only theories and suppositions from generations of very intelligent people who desperately did not want to believe that there is a place of eternal torment for those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior
______________

Emily, is there some big room where you get together with other Christian dimwits and tell each other how smart you are?

Oh, yeah. Church.

William Hays at 5:41PM on Dec 31st 2007

62. Now, of course, anyone who responds to Observant's post #55 directed at "god-less one" [SIC] will be challenged with: "How did you know I was addressing you?"

This is Christianity's option of last resort when dealing with non-compliance: condemn and terrorize [veiled or otherwise] the Satanic bastard with the horror of eternal suffering in God's cosmic campfire.

Yeah, I know you didn't mention eternal suffering or fiery death specifically, which is why your passive-aggressive threat is veiled. See, you're just not that bright. And people just aren't that dumb. They recognize a terroristic leverage whenever they see it.

Paul at 5:42PM on Dec 31st 2007

63. And there's absolutely nothing to disprove evolution. The human eye and the flagellum actually are evidence for evolution, despite what Behe wishes to believe. Behe's nonsense has been refuted.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:45PM on Dec 31st 2007

64. 35. Hey Frank, You really believe a burning bush told a guy who lived to be nearly a millenia, what is wrong and right? I think you and Rita have more in common than you think.

Greg at 4:31PM on Dec 31st 2007
------------------------------------------------
I believe you misunderstand me. I do not worship nor believe in any god(s). I believe in compassion, justice, honesty, integrity, civility, science, democracy, etc, etc, but I do not believe in fear-based religions or punishment-dealing god(s).

Frank at 5:46PM on Dec 31st 2007

65. Observant,
The devil went throughout the world and throughout time and purposely placed bits and pieces of literature to deceive us right. Do you know how retarded you sound? Just go to these ancient cites, or to a museum read what has been deciphered at the British museum. Read about Adapa (biblical Adam) who through the guidance of a snake was trying to achieve immortality. He was told not to eat the fruits offered by the gods. If he had eaten the fruits he would have been mortal but instead lost his immortality. Adapa never even knew who Yahweh was!
Anything that doesn't fit with the plagiarized fictitious bible these fundies call the work of the devil. No wonder nothing gets through that pea head of yours!

goddess1prevail at 5:48PM on Dec 31st 2007

66. Darkness of Knight.

The law and prophets were until John.
Joel prophesied about the last days of the law, and it came to pass in Acts 2:1-47

If you are going to discuss the Bible you need to get saved first so you can understand it.

Observant at 5:48PM on Dec 31st 2007

67. Hey Greg,
I believe Moses came upon a burning bush of cannabis. He was so high and thought that the gods told him to liberate his enslaved people!

goddess1prevail at 5:50PM on Dec 31st 2007

68. This is good news.

I wonder whether Richard would allow for some Islamic Symbols. I mean - the symbols are not bad themselves...is the philosophy behind them, right?

E. I. Sanchez at 5:52PM on Dec 31st 2007

69. UnObservant,

The law and the prophets stand until jesus returns, Matt 5:17-18.

You lose.

If you want to discuss the bible, you actually have to READ it, dimwit.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:51PM on Dec 31st 2007

70. Observant; how convienent that only the "saved" can discuss the bible. How very Medieval of you.

Speaking of eternal hellfire, isn't it interesting that Jesus never mentioned hell? He only ever mentioned a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.

Translation is a funny thing.

Ryan Anderson at 5:52PM on Dec 31st 2007

71. My apologies Frank. And that burning bush of canabis theory makes more sense than some things I have read on here.
Mr. NeoObservant,
I think a lot of us on here would love to believe in a god where you can commit a series of misbehaviors (sins) and as long as you say you are sorry then everything is good. I know I wish my girlfriend would go for that.

Greg at 5:56PM on Dec 31st 2007

72. Darkness of Knight,

Till all be fulfilled.

It was fulfilled, and you don't see it.

Observant at 5:57PM on Dec 31st 2007

73. 66. Hey Greg,
I believe Moses came upon a burning bush of cannabis. He was so high and thought that the gods told him to liberate his enslaved people!

goddess1prevail at 5:50PM on Dec 31st 2007
------------------------------------------------
Now that's a revelation! Maybe that's how the talking snakes and donkeys came about.

Frank at 6:00PM on Dec 31st 2007

74. Ryan Anderson said,
69. Observant; how convienent that only the "saved" can discuss the bible. How very Medieval of you.

Speaking of eternal hellfire, isn't it interesting that Jesus never mentioned hell? He only ever mentioned a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.

Translation is a funny thing.

Ryan Anderson at 5:52PM on
-------------------------------------

Why don't you try reading Luke 16 :19-31
Jesus spoke in great detail on the subject of hell you say he never mentioned.

How very atheist of you.

Observant at 6:05PM on Dec 31st 2007

75. All wasn't fulfilled. You're seeing something that never happened, UnObservant.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 6:06PM on Dec 31st 2007

Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.

Mo's Video

The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

Mo's Bio

Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.