8

What renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed to be is looked at on this blog site, with the link to the video where he says it at the end of this question: https://possil.wordpress.com/2024/05/09/without-foundations-the-building-falls/

Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has now declared himself to be a ‘cultural Christian’. He cherishes the cultural artifacts and traditions of Christianity, from hymns and Christmas carols to beautiful parish churches and old-fashioned liberalism. He ‘feels the Christian ethos’, and considers the UK a Christian country and that ‘to substitute any alternative religion would be truly dreadful’. How very nice of him to say so.

But has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what Christianity really is?

How did we get from the martyrdom of 10 of Jesus’ Apostles for refusing to renounce belief in Christ, to atheists today saying they are cultural Christians? And could it be argued that the one word in their claim that should not be allowed is ‘Christian’? They could call themselves cultural atheists supporting the cultural side of Christianity, perhaps, but we all know that in this sound-bite era, a two-word designation goes down without question, while an exact designation has many people fast asleep halfway through reading it. All right. That’s not very nice of me to say so.

Those questions still remain important, though:

What have Christian artifacts and traditions got to do with claiming to be any kind of a Christian?

Can an atheist ever claim to be any kind of a Christian?

Does such a claim show the atheist has no real understanding of what it is to be a Christian?

Has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what it is to be a Christian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COHgEFUFWyg Question addressed to atheists and Christians who have examined the logic behind such a claim.

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    Up-voted +1. This is why we are baptised. We are crucified with Christ ; we are dead with Christ ; we are risen with Christ ; we are seated in the heavenlies in Christ ; we are under Christ's Headship, within one body ; we suffer with Christ. This profession and this way of life benefits those around us. And yes, let them benefit. But it they want to be one of us, let them be publicly baptised. And let them live Christianity.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Aug 15 at 19:29
  • "the once-clear waters as to what Christianity really is?" — I don't think it's been clear for nearly 2000 years. (E.g. 2 Peter 2 is about "false teachers among you".)
    – Ray Butterworth
    Commented Aug 16 at 12:18

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
10

Dawkins is very careful in the interview to clarify and emphasize that he thinks Christian beliefs are absolute nonsense. He says so many times in order to prevent there being any misunderstanding. I don't think he is claiming to be any kind of a Christian at all, just that he prefers to live in a country whose ethics and legal foundations and so forth were produced by those who do or did believe.

It's a weird position to hold; considering believers as utterly hoodwinked and irrational fools who cannot turn out even the most basic of logical conclusions or operate the most rudimentary rationality and, at the same time, to cherish and desire to protect and participate in what those very same fools have produced.

Of course he must believe that the "Christian culture" that he so prefers was somehow developed not because of Christian belief but somehow rather in spite of it. It seems (from the interview) that he would be happy to arrive at a "Christian culture" where every person has done what he has done; shrugged off through sheer intellectual prowess the nonsense that was once believed. One is almost forced to try to imagine a Christian culture somehow arising or sustaining completely apart from the beliefs themselves. He wants to eradicate the tree and still shelter in the branches.

In this way his stated desire to remain within and protect "cultural Christianity" all the while working to void it of it's essential belief is not very rational at all. He wants to remove all substance and somehow still retain the thing. It is senseless. Then again, rejecting the absolutely most fundamental fact of existence, that God is, does not lend itself to good conclusions. He is a bird of the air, lodging in the branches of the very thing he claims does not exist:

The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. - Matthew 13:31-32

More worrisome is the long, slow acceptance of this very thing within the ranks of those professing Christianity, as evidenced in the interview by the host, Rachel Johnston, as she fends off Dawkin's questions. Some birds also snatch away the good seed before it can take root. Lord, help us all!

Improve this answer
8
  • 3
    Nice! +1. Dawkins is eyeing another major "religion" and getting concerned with its intolerance. I doubt a few years ago he would ever have wanted to approve of Christianity in any way at all. Who knows? Maybe this is the start of a journey for him. Surely he is smart enough to see his current views are as inconsistent as this answer exposes: "I prefer the religion and religious freedoms created by those totally gullible idiotic morons and those devious money-loving self-seeking clergy!"
    – Andrew Shanks
    Commented Aug 15 at 17:50
  • 2
    Dawkins likes the historic benefits provided by a people who are 'the salt of the earth' but he does not want to taste salt himself.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Aug 15 at 19:22
  • Dawkins would argue that a broken clock can point at the right time occasionally. Christianity may be, to him, a nonsense, but some of its cultural values are ones that align with his own sensibilities.
    – Valorum
    Commented Aug 17 at 7:08
  • 1
    @Valorum Do you think he hangs on to his broken clocks?
    – Mike Borden
    Commented Aug 17 at 12:14
  • 1
    @MikeBorden - Indeed. And Mr Dawkins would argue that once you have a superior watch (modern Western culture and philosophy) you can chuck your broken watch (Christianity and all of its attendant need to believe in a deity, fund a priestly class, etc) in the bin.
    – Valorum
    Commented Aug 18 at 13:50
2

Short version: No, It is not logically sound.

Medium version: A christian is someone who at the very very bare minimum confesses that Christ died to save them for their own sins in a personal way. The extra beliefs around how, why, what, etc. Are separate, so the claim to be a Christian for all the stuff around the core basis but not accepting the core basis itself, is not being a Christian.

It is similar to going to church (late), just to enjoy the donuts during coffee afterwards (the coffee culture if you will).

Long Version: Dawkins' position on the Christian Beliefs is impossible to dispute, he sharpens his intellect daily in attempt to irreparably harm the entirety of Christianity. And instead of converting like Saul did... he has come out and said "I'm a cultural christian" which is not actually a christian, just someone who likes living in a judeo-christian based society such as the USA.

What have Christian artifacts and traditions got to do with claiming to be any kind of a Christian?

Faith without works is dead, but works without faith is not alive. There is much value on the sacred traditions and importance of rituals is not to be ignored. (I'm Orthodox afterall) To claim that the remaining afterimage of Christianity on society is somehow significant to being a christian seems like a weak position. A house built on sand if you prefer.

Can an atheist ever claim to be any kind of a Christian?

No, This requires admitting that God is real. A christian is someone who at the very very bare minimum confesses that Christ died to save them for their own sins in a personal way. (That sentence compacts more meaning inside then it appears, Christ requires you admit God exists, etc)

Does such a claim show the atheist has no real understanding of what it is to be a Christian?

It seems to show that the person claiming it is in error, however Dawkins hedged his words and limited his position until he was outside the actual definition of "A Christian" even in the very loosest standard possible. His use of the word "christian" is not intended to do anything other then provoke debate and discussion, to seek attention.

Has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what it is to be a Christian?

No. The fundamental definition still requires the belief in Christ as your personal Savior.

Dawkins is basically saying that "I grew up with this set of celebrations, holidays, artworks, and music" and "I like these things" and "I dislike Islam" and "I support the murder of the unborn"

His answer about a socio-cultural question about the King... is not religious in nature.

And during the interview he clearly maintains his position as a socio-cultural one. It is mildly frustrating that he choose such imprecise language.

Improve this answer
1

Years ago I read Bertrand Russell "History of western philosophy", in it, I think, he also talked about George Santayana. This Santayana was a Spanish-American philosopher who made the statement "There is no God, and Mary is his mother" (I think, all from memory). He also stated that who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, so being right wasn't exactly his thing maybe.

Nevertheless, he was very happy with the Spanish Catholic views, values, culture and such. He just didn't share its faith.

I don't know if someone can claim to be a Christian without sharing the most fundamental parts of the Christian faith. I do understand however how many, many people do. My part of my country if full of people who call themselves catholic (and yes, that is Christian), but when asked, quite clearly show they do not share the fundamentals of the faith.

I don't judge that. I feel sorry for what they miss out on, and I hope that their position may one day bring them back. But that is up to God.

Improve this answer
1
  • Jorge Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” English philosopher John Stuart Mill: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” The Bible: "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather EXPOSE THEM" (Ephesians 5:11)
    – Lesley
    Commented Aug 25 at 11:13
1

I don't see any problem with his attitude. I personally feel that I'm a "cultural Jew" in a similar way. When I was young I went to Hebrew School (and even Hebrew High School) and attended synogogue regularly. But as an adult I'm an atheist.

But I still feel a kinship with the Jewish people. Their history of oppression (enslavement in ancient Egypt, pogroms in eastern Europe, the Holocaust) is my history. I've been lucky not to have experienced antisemitism in my own life (I grew up in a mostly Jewish town), but I feel for those who have.

Being Jewish is as much a part of me as being American. I continued to participate in some Jewish traditions into adulthood, although I've mostly fallen out of them because I don't have a family of my own to share them with. But for many years I led the Passover seder with my relatives; I don't believe in God and the miracles in the story, but I do believe that our forefathers escaped from slavery and it's worthwhile recounting it.

There are secular aspects to most religions, so it's quite possible to accept those while rejecting the supernatural claims. You don't need to believe in God to agree with commandsments like "Thou shalt not kill". Nor do you need to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, or that an oil lamp miraculously burned longer than it should have, to enjoy celebrating Christmas or Chanukkah.

And many ideas aren't inherently bad just because they come from religious tradition. Teachings of Jesus like the Golden Rule and "turn the other cheek" are wonderful, and Jews have a tradition of valuing education.

Some may say that it's disingenuous to pick and choose the aspects of a religion you believe in, you're not "really Christian" if you ignore the parts about God. To that I say that no Christians really follows everything in the Bible. Maybe this bit is too important to ignore, but that's why Dawkins qualifies it with "cultural".

Improve this answer
3
  • Aye. Unless you're out there each weekend stoning someone to death for adultery or killing your neighbour because he's an infidel, there's always an element of 'pick and choose' in any religious belief.
    – Valorum
    Commented Aug 17 at 7:10
  • 1
    Nicely explained and understandable. I suppose that Valorum refers to a world religion different to Judaism and Christianity. But I don't see the logic if you imply that it's okay to pick and choose what aspects of a religion to believe in because not all Christians follow everything in the Bible. The key point of my question is not believing God exists - being an atheist. Surely that means that there cannot be a particle of religion in one's cultural engagement? It's 100% culture and 0% religion?
    – Anne
    Commented Aug 17 at 7:45
  • @Anne My point is that it's not either/or, it's a more of a continuum or spectrum of beliefs. And "cultural Christian/Jew" is at the far end of the continuum.
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 18 at 5:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .