Richard Dawkins says he is a Cultural Christian

[lewisnotmiller]

He doesn't speak for atheists, these are not the same thing- he's not much of an atheist, after all. It'd just be nice if there could be an intelligent prominent atheist, instead of obvious imbeciles like Hitchens or Dawkins.

I'm not sure atheism really needs prominent spokespeople. I'm not convinced advocating for atheism (apart from specific instances like legal equality) is an exercise with much need. Of course, I live in Australia, so perhaps culturally I'm judging this differently to other parts of the world.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In the end, atheism, like theism, is a personal choice made for personal reasons. It's why the more intelligent people of either camp tend not to debate the issue. Either position is logically valid, and neither position is provable, or falsifiable. So what's the point?

All propositional attitudes are personal choices for personal reasons, not sure why that's worth noting when it applies across the board. What is more interesting is, what are the best possible reasons? What is the steelman case for either? And there is an evident dissymmetry here, since while atheism can (and often does) admit of epistemically justifiable reasons, theism cannot, even on the best case scenario (say, personal revelation via mystical experience since this is after all a sort of empiricism?)

But you've said this bit about falsifiability before, and it still isn't true. Theism absolutely is falsifiable. Theism is the position that a transcendent creator-intervener exists. Divine intervention is falsifiable. Divine creation excludes the truth of naturalistic cosmology, and so is falsifiable. The non-existence of gratuitous suffering/evil and of non-resistent non-believers are both logical consequences of theism, and so falsifiable. We could go on. This is just a form of anti-intellectualism based on false equivalence: neither is provable (supposedly, but not actually), so who cares either way? Not a good attitude, let alone an accurate one.

And since we're all here debating religion, our intelligence is all equally impeached. But that comment was based on a false premise in any case.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm not sure atheism really needs prominent spokespeople. I'm not convinced advocating for atheism (apart from specific instances like legal equality) is an exercise with much need. Of course, I live in Australia, so perhaps culturally I'm judging this differently to other parts of the world.

when you look at the extreme religious sentiments being juiced to support intolerance- trans panic, resurgence of mainstream homophobia, inter- and intrareligious conflict (there's a literal genocide occurring along religious lines right now), curbing of women's reproductive rights- I think the need is pretty obvious, and I think its pretty safe to say that you're judging this based on your own favorable situation in a slightly-less crazy country. Even if atheism weren't ethically needful, it should still have prominent spokespeople, because atheists exist, and the distribution of public notoriety should at least somewhat reflect the actual makeup of the country.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not sure atheism really needs prominent spokespeople. I'm not convinced advocating for atheism (apart from specific instances like legal equality) is an exercise with much need. Of course, I live in Australia, so perhaps culturally I'm judging this differently to other parts of the world.

Atheism is self-evident so I wouldn't cut it short that it would require representation through a prominent spokesperson either.

I agree with you that there is really no need for anybody prominent to advocate what is already abundantly clear and cut at the start.

I do find Dawkins to be quite capable as a spokesperson on the matter of atheism however, and many of the debates I find interesting, and his book, "The God Delusion" to me , had clarified rather well the position on agnosticism of which I had been corrected on in the past. I've since reverted my position to that of a temporary agnostic allowing a scientific approach rather than a dogmatic approach that would mirror theists self assurance without proper evidences.

I do think a lot of the criticism is unfounded as Dawkins can be quite a bulldog, which is where I think a lot of the criticism stems from, and not over his intellect and position on the matter of atheism.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Sure they did, despite your obvious bad faith. Suckered them into responding to you- good job, grade A trolling!

No, they only cited links to articles of specific things Dr. Dawkins said, without explaining the reasoning for why they specifically disagreed with those statements. I read a couple of the articles and found myself agreeing with Dr. Dawkins so I asked the person why he disagreed with the statements and he didn't provide any reasoning.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I do think a lot of the criticism is unfounded as Dawkins can be quite a bulldog, which is where I think a lot of the criticism stems from, and not over his intellect and position on the matter of atheism.

Oh I assure you, my criticism stems purely from his own intellectual shortcomings and failures to even argue his position competently (see also: his bigotry tour, trying to appeal to conservative Christians on cultural grounds since he sucks so hard at the religious discourse). If he was a "bulldog", that would be a good thing, instead he's just sort of a pitiful old has-been. And, unfortunately, an atheistic mirror image of a fundamentalist evangelical YEC'er, which is ironic considering the circumstances.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not for me he isn't. I've read a few of his books (as to his work) and seen him commenting as to religious beliefs. He is welcome to be as anti-religious as he wants to be in my view and I don't judge him on such, given that the religions have had it mostly their own way for centuries and still do have much the same influence in many countries - even the USA where plenty still have the most ludicrous beliefs. The ones who are embarrassing are those like YEC believers and those peddling outdated female rights or gender/sexuality views. But he no doubt has his faults.

When I read the God Delusion I got the impression he should really stick to biology. He is right to mention religious trauma, but him calling Thomas Paine an atheist is as boneheaded as Jordan Peterson telling Sam Harris that he (Harris) lives his life as though he believes god is real.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure atheism really needs prominent spokespeople. I'm not convinced advocating for atheism (apart from specific instances like legal equality) is an exercise with much need. Of course, I live in Australia, so perhaps culturally I'm judging this differently to other parts of the world.

I have yet to see anyone who does who doesn't at least occasionally have a flair up of zealous ferver in their attacks on the religious (in other words, being an ******* to theists).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

when you look at the extreme religious sentiments being juiced to support intolerance- trans panic, resurgence of mainstream homophobia, inter- and intrareligious conflict (there's a literal genocide occurring along religious lines right now), curbing of women's reproductive rights- I think the need is pretty obvious, and I think its pretty safe to say that you're judging this based on your own favorable situation in a slightly-less crazy country. Even if atheism weren't ethically needful, it should still have prominent spokespeople, because atheists exist, and the distribution of public notoriety should at least somewhat reflect the actual makeup of the country.

Maybe...
I think drawing lines between atheism and theism is as much problematic as helpful. My ideological enemies aren't theists writ large, and I'd prefer to advocate for secularism than atheism.

Still...I see your point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

when you look at the extreme religious sentiments being juiced to support intolerance- trans panic, resurgence of mainstream homophobia, inter- and intrareligious conflict (there's a literal genocide occurring along religious lines right now), curbing of women's reproductive rights- I think the need is pretty obvious, and I think its pretty safe to say that you're judging this based on your own favorable situation in a slightly-less crazy country. Even if atheism weren't ethically needful, it should still have prominent spokespeople, because atheists exist, and the distribution of public notoriety should at least somewhat reflect the actual makeup of the country.

Who would that spokesperson be? No one in the atheist group here likes Richard Dawkins.

 

[Mock Turtle]

When I read the God Delusion I got the impression he should really stick to biology. He is right to mention religious trauma, but him calling Thomas Paine an atheist is as boneheaded as Jordan Peterson telling Sam Harris that he (Harris) lives his life as though he believes god is real.

I have read this book too, but so long ago as not to remember much, and my knowledge of Christianity is hardly so detailed to have noticed such errors. But describing any of these people (I've read most of them) in ad hom terms is just silly - as others have done - but all can be wrong as to what they believe or as to the knowledge they might have. I'm not bothered as to 'figureheads' as to any sort of belief, and never have.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have read this book too, but so long ago as not to remember much, and my knowledge of Christianity is hardly so detailed to have noticed such errors. But describing any of these people (I've read most of them) in ad hom terms is just silly - as others have done - but all can be wrong as to what they believe or as to the knowledge they might have. I'm not bothered as to 'figureheads' as to any sort of belief, and never have.

It's not knowing Christianity. It's knowing Thomas Paine and reading the Age of Reason. Among his many complaints against Christianity, Paine reveals a feeling of atheophobia when he wrote Christianity is good at turning people into "fanatics amd atheists," going on to criticize the idea of living life without belief in the Almighty.
This man, Thomas Paine, Dawkins called an atheist (and he falls into a common atheist trap of making that assumption). It's not the only example of why he needs to stick to biology (even he admited philosophy isn't his strong point), it's just the one I'm still face-palming over that anyone actually can make such an obvious mistake (especially when it's someone we'd expect to do some double checking on tye facts for a book to be published).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Who would that spokesperson be? No one in the atheist group here likes Richard Dawkins.

I mean, the overwhelming majority of professional philosophers are atheists, I have to imagine any number of them would do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I mean, the overwhelming majority of professional philosophers are atheists, I have to imagine any number of them would do.

Lots of philosophers are theist.
Amd what's a "professional philosopher?"

 

[The Hammer]

You have been influenced by Christianity in more ways than are imaginable.

Yeah, it's rather unfortunate isn't it?

No?

Of course not. It's more or less your belief system.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

About ~70% of professional philosophers are atheists while only around 15% are theists. This is a pretty shocking proportion- the general demographics are closer to the reverse of this.

And a professional philosopher is someone who gets paid to do philosophy.

Honestly I would guess around half or more of churchgoers/self proclaimed American Christians are atheists and just go for the social activity or to keep family/friends happy and avoid conflict.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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”.

I think Christians should adhere to this saying in the NT: "[Mar 9:40 NIV] 40 for whoever is not against us is for us." Here's Professor Dawkins openly stating that he is not opposed to Christianity or at least not its culture. He seems to have passed through a paranoid phase about it and has decided that while there is much he does not like there are some relieving qualities. He is waiting for Christianity to resolve some of its more famous problems. I'd say his criticism is probably doing Christianity a favor.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Americans consistently self-report belief in God. For instance, this 2023 survey found 74% of Americans believe in God; 87% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats. I'm inclined to believe that this figure is at least in the ball-park.

I would doubt those results are a representative sample. I tend to think those who respond to a religiously-oriented survey are more likely to be religious, and of course, people frequently lie on surveys. I expect most Americans are actually atheists but just don't talk about it because it's not usually socially beneficial to do so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

About ~70% of professional philosophers are atheists while only around 15% are theists. This is a pretty shocking proportion- the general demographics are closer to the reverse of this.

And a professional philosopher is someone who gets paid to do philosophy.

That appears to be the faculty somewhere.
And getting paid to do philosophy. That's not actually an accepted answer among philosophers. Such as, the reason many people laymen consider a philosopher aren't actually accepted as a philosopher in the field is due to a lack of engagement with other philosophers.
And "do philosophy." Do you know what philosophy is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I expect most Americans are actually atheists but just don't talk about it because it's not usually socially beneficial to do so.

That's like theists trying to say atheists are really theists themselves but [insert bogus reason x, y, z].