-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Richard Dawkins says he is a Cultural Christian
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
Contrary to what some secularly melioristic worldviews might imply, it is almost trivially obvious that someone born and raised in a society largely rooted in centuries of a specific religion's doctrinal, philosophical, and theological ethos will be influenced by the religion or at least traces thereof in one way or another, even if the influence on that individual may have faded or become secular in nature. Even the way Dawkins arrived at or sustained his atheist position would have undoubtedly been influenced by a Christian context and cultural milieu, something that is also evident in how most of his anti-religious and anti-theistic arguments are centered around a Christian view of the world.
There's rarely a definitive dividing line between the religious and secular in terms of cultural influence, as significant interplay and mutual influence exist between the two. Christianity was secularized by some of the very societies whose socioeconomic, political, and cultural norms it largely shaped throughout two millennia—I would think of the historically recent relation between Christianity and secularism in Europe as symbiotic, not mutually exclusive.
Essentially, Dawkins' statement that he's a "cultural Christian" is no more noteworthy than a statement that he's British or European. Just because he opposes the religion from a doctrinal and theological standpoint doesn't mean he's divorced from the profound and assorted ways in which the religion has influenced the culture he comes from—just as a person who was born and raised in Thailand would be inextricably influenced by Buddhist culture, or a person born and raised in Saudi Arabia would be inextricably influenced by Islamic culture.
There's rarely a definitive dividing line between the religious and secular in terms of cultural influence, as significant interplay and mutual influence exist between the two. Christianity was secularized by some of the very societies whose socioeconomic, political, and cultural norms it largely shaped throughout two millennia—I would think of the historically recent relation between Christianity and secularism in Europe as symbiotic, not mutually exclusive.
Essentially, Dawkins' statement that he's a "cultural Christian" is no more noteworthy than a statement that he's British or European. Just because he opposes the religion from a doctrinal and theological standpoint doesn't mean he's divorced from the profound and assorted ways in which the religion has influenced the culture he comes from—just as a person who was born and raised in Thailand would be inextricably influenced by Buddhist culture, or a person born and raised in Saudi Arabia would be inextricably influenced by Islamic culture.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You have been influenced by Christianity in more ways than are imaginable. On the flip, I don't see where a town having a French name means the citizens of that town are influenced by French culture.
Viker
Häxan
I don't deny that I have been influenced by Christianity and definitely my European roots. I doubt that it makes me culturally Christian. On another thread I have posted to today, having knowledge (and some sympathies) of the whole of my ancestry and having moved in my own direction in life, I would consider myself culturally an American. I don't know any other thing more suiting to call it.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Okay, I'm sorry my questions and asking for facts and reasoning made you feel uncomfortable. Maybe when you're feeling better and your emotions have calmed down you can help me understand your position, I'm always happy to discuss and always enjoy hearing new perspectives.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Of course it is. The poet Philip Larkin, far too cynical and pessimistic to believe in the Christian God, loved churches, graveyards, evensong, many of the rites, rituals and public holidays of the Anglican Church. He once said of The Bible “It’s amazing to think that anyone believed any of that. Really, it’s absolute balls. Beautiful, of course, but balls.”
I will always be grateful for The Selfish Gene. Professor Dawkins can change his mind ten times about religion, and I won't care. I think he should feel free to do that, and it doesn't scratch his legacy at all. If tomorrow he ordered Seal Team Six to attack a political rival he'd still have written that book. Yes I know I'm mixing my people memes.
Yes I know I'm mixing my people memes.
Augustus
…
Why though?
The idea of a 'secular' realm and a 'religious' realm is a culturally contingent concept, secularism is not some kind of default state that exists until someone gets rid of it with 'religion'. Some kind of religious/spiritual/mystical aspect to culture is ubiquitous to human societies since time immemorial, but it wasn't abstracted and kept distinct from "secular" cultural and political aspects of society.
In Europe, formal lines of separation started emerging from the 11th C or so, and this process continued on gradually over the following centuries. This happened in a Christian context.
The emergence of secularism was an indirect and messy process, but it was not simply a rejection of Christianity but a process within it.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I was born and raised in Belgium.I found this report on Dawkins, one of the world's most famous and antagonistic atheists, claiming to be a cultural Christian to be absolutely fascinating. I hope it will open up a discussion about what a cultural Christian is as opposed to a true believer, and why (perhaps) such a person would identify with Christianity as opposed to, say, Islam. Here are various quotes from two of many articles on it.
Atheist Richard Dawkins considers himself a ‘cultural Christian’
Atheist Richard Dawkins said of Christianity: “It seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion, in a way that I think Islam is not.”www.catholicnewsagency.com
Atheist Richard Dawkins said of Christianity: “It seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion, in a way that I think Islam is not.”....
After expressing his satisfaction at what he perceives as a decline in the number of Christians, the famous atheist noted that he “would not be happy if, for example, we lost all our cathedrals and our beautiful parish churches. So I call myself a cultural Christian and I think it would be truly dreadful if we substituted any alternative religion.”
“You know I love hymns and Christmas Carols. I feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense”....
Dawkins’ version of atheism seems to have changed tack, and in a positive way, or at least in this interview. He has left behind the stinging attacks and is gently embracing the world that Christianity has provided....
...because secularism & Dawkins’ own brand of evangelical atheism are both expressions of a specifically Christian culture – as Dawkins himself, sitting on the branch he’s been sawing through and gazing nervously at the ground far below, seems to have begun to realise....
Richard Dawkins wants to keep the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the beliefs of Christianity....
Dawkins admits that the social good has an origins story and it is integrally tied to the Christian faith, although he is still unwilling to believe in the Divine. “There is a difference between being a believing Christian and a cultural Christian”.
As such I live in judeo-christian culture and am part of it.
This is my cultural heritage, regardless of me being an atheist.
He really had his time in the sun in the 2000s with his atheism crusade.
He's a great scientist and intellectual but something about him these days just makes his presence in the public eye redundant.
People seem to have moved on from the whole "religion sucks" phase of his heyday. Bigger fish to fry I guess.
He's a great scientist and intellectual but something about him these days just makes his presence in the public eye redundant.
People seem to have moved on from the whole "religion sucks" phase of his heyday. Bigger fish to fry I guess.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Okay, I'm sorry my questions and asking for facts and reasoning made you feel uncomfortable. Maybe when you're feeling better and your emotions have calmed down you can help me understand your position, I'm always happy to discuss and always enjoy hearing new perspectives.
Okay, sea lion.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
But that's just cultural conditioning, no? I am sure for Middle Eastern Abrahamics (the phrase isn't exclusively used by Muslims), this isn't an unpleasant experience.
I could say kneeling on a prayer rug has got to be more comfortable than a church pew. Personally, I prefer worship that involves dancing naked around a fire.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
It's not unreasonable to reject the religiosity of Christianity while embracing the ethos. I have little doubt that if Jesus were alive today he would still be a Jew, and not a Christian. As I don't believe he had any intention of starting a new religion based on himself.
I believe he intended to inspire a spiritual awakening within his fellow Jews, and among anyone else who cared to listen to him, regardless of their religion or lack of it. That spiritual awakening was theologically based, in his mind, actions and speech, so atheists would have had a difficult time with it, but they were few in number In those days. But today people are more sophisticated philosophically, and this, too, could be more easily overcome.
All Dawkins is pointing out is that philosophical humanism is a valuable and available ethical paradigm within both religious Christianity and secular atheism.
I believe he intended to inspire a spiritual awakening within his fellow Jews, and among anyone else who cared to listen to him, regardless of their religion or lack of it. That spiritual awakening was theologically based, in his mind, actions and speech, so atheists would have had a difficult time with it, but they were few in number In those days. But today people are more sophisticated philosophically, and this, too, could be more easily overcome.
All Dawkins is pointing out is that philosophical humanism is a valuable and available ethical paradigm within both religious Christianity and secular atheism.
I don't even think what he said was all that off brand or hypocritical either.
Seems like a solid comment rooted firmly in an insightful understanding of his ancestry.
Most versions of Christianity - including the C of E that Dawkins is expressing fondness for - are antithetical to philosophical humanism.
PureX
Veteran Member
Only in your biased mind. The vast majority of Christians are humanists. And most of the ethical paradigms presented by religious Christianity are intended the serve the general well being of humanity. But if you're a religion hating atheist, you will be inclined to ignore all this and search for any example you can find to justify demonizing your 'enemy's' intent.
libre
Skylark
How was it a process within it? I just don't see the vision
Gregorian Reformation, when the Church declared it would not be subject to the King et al.