Richard Dawkins recently explained that he self-identifies as a cultural christian. He doesn’t believe in Deus, but he enjoys many christian traditions, including carols and hymns. This particular article is written from a Christian perspective, which I do not personally agree with, but it correctly interprets that Dawkins’ cultural christianity seems to be a dogwhistle for whiteness. Many atheists like Dawkins are cultural christians, in ways that subtly reinforce white supremacist narratives.
Damn, I think I got whiplash from all those right angle turns in the summary.
Who would know more about what atheists really believe than “The UK’s Premiere Christian Magazine?”
For the same reason, I always make sure I let Muslims know what they really believe. They really believe Muhammad was a zebra. They might tell you otherwise, but I’m an atheist, so I know what Muslims really believe.
(Also, Dawkins is a dick, but that’s unrelated.)
He literally said he’s a cultural christian.
So? I’m ethnically Jewish. I still don’t believe in any gods.
That’s what “atheist” means.
The point is that Dawkins is incredibly critical of other religions to the point of bordering on xenophobia, while he gives Christianity a lot of free passes aside from the occasional flippant quip or jab because of what is probably a subconscious (or at least not quite fully conscious) association with whiteness.
Basically, he’s an atheist who only seems to particularly dislike religions that he doesn’t culturally relate to. In particular islam.
I don’t disagree there, but this is not the publication to be making that point.
I guess I see your point but I also watched Fox News/Christians get up in arms (years ago) when a seasoned religious scholar (Reza Aslan) wrote a text on Jesus because he was not Christian. Ultimately it’s how much the individual author knows, not the group they associate with, that determines if somebody can write with authority on a subject.
Anybody can write about Richard Dawkins in any context so long as they actually know what they’re talking about. Hell Playboy was a major literary and political/social thought magazine for decades.
The author was talking about Dawkins specifically. She didn’t make any claim about ‘atheists’ in general. And irrespective of her religious beliefs, the points she made about his words were valid.
Regardless, this is not the publication to be discussing it and OP has already made an “atheists are actually religious” post, so they have an agenda.
I think a christian publication is entirely within its rights to discuss the words of someone who describes themselves as a cultural christian.
And I don’t really care if OP has an agenda or not, I’m answering the points you made on this post.
Okay, just don’t be surprised when you see the next post from OP about how atheists aren’t really atheists.
I won’t care about that one either.
Richard Dawkins sure is a religious atheist. Religion is about a lot more than just theism. It can be a system of spiritual, philosophical, cultural, and/or moral beliefs. There are plenty of religions that have little to nothing to do with gods. For example, Buddhism. There are plenty of Buddhist atheists.
Why do you get to define him?
Why do you get to define anyone but yourself?
Do you tell trans people what their gender is too?
Perhaps no one should listen or care about Dawkins.
Lots of atheists are raised in Christian families and Christian culture. So, yes, “Cultural Christian”.
Until we have an atheist dominated society, that’s simply the way it is.
I was raised Methodist before realizing it was all bullshit when I was about 8 or 9.
Whilst we don’t have an atheist dominated society in the UK, christians do not make up the majority of the population either. Dawkins has made a specific choice to identify with that particular religion.
Whilst we don’t have an atheist dominated society in the UK, christians do not make up the majority of the population either.
That’s only a VERY recent change, within the last decade. Before the 1980s (ie the first half of his life) Christians made up 80-90% of the population.
There’s a lot of so called atheists in the UK who are quite happy to give xtianity a free pass and at the same time pile on to other religions. We all know what they’re really against.
Dawkins is definitely not a humanist by any reasonable definition. His statements of personal bias (i.e. on the beauty of church bells versus the monstrous prayer calls of Islam) fly in the face of “nothing human is alien to me”. At this stage he’s maybe six months away from sharing a forum with Jordan Peterson or someone.
on the beauty of church bells versus the monstrous prayer calls of Islam
I mean he’s not wrong though, have you heard the Azan, not only it’s annoying, but tell me what to think when you’re sleeping and someone is yelling at 3am…
most church bells aren’t particularly pleasant they are just loud and sonourous i suppose but i’d rather not be hearing them than hearing them
same for grandfather clocks tbh, shut up over there and let me experience time at my own rate
