April 1, 2024 - 6:00pm
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the coming of the dusk, wrote Hegel, referring to the attainment of wisdom when it is already too late, or almost too late. Richard Dawkins, now 83, has once again stated that he regards himself as a “cultural Christian”. This is not a new position for Professor Dawkins. Even in the heyday of the New Atheists, he alluded several times to his love of choral Evensong and country churchyards and Gothic architecture — what you might call the form of English Christianity, rather than the substance.
“Cultural Christian” usually means someone who values the civilisational, artistic and moral benefits of Christianity, but is sceptical or ambivalent about its specific teachings. Clement Attlee famously said that he respected the ethics of Christianity but not “the mumbo-jumbo”. Jordan Peterson, whose wife became a Catholic this Easter, has a very high view of the Bible as a repository of truthful reflection on human nature, but does not describe himself as a believer.
Cultural Christians tend to come under fire from both sides. Observant Christians criticise them as free riders, who want the advantages of Christian societies without the hard work of believing and belonging and repenting. TS Eliot rebuked them in his Choruses From The Rock: “Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments as you can boast in the way of polite society will hardly survive the Faith to which they owe their significance?”
More hardline atheists, meanwhile, accuse them of lacking the courage of their convictions, and of lending succour to the dark and reactionary elements of faith because of their unwillingness to forgo aesthetically pleasing weddings and a cosy service on Christmas Eve.
I have made the first kind of critique myself, and it has some force. It is true that all the aspects of Christianity appreciated by the Petersons and Attlees ultimately depend on other people actually believing the “mumbo jumbo”. The great cathedrals, the Christmas carols and the enduring liturgical poetry of the Catholic Mass and the Book of Common Prayer were not, and could not have been, created by half-believers who found Christianity merely soothing and comforting.
All that said, I have a soft spot for the cultural Christians. For those like me who love the heritage and history of Britain, they should be regarded as allies, because they understand — as many do not — what exactly makes our inheritance unique and special.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI grew up in an overwhelmingly observant Catholic society in the 1970s and 1980s. Virtually the whole parish – rich and poor, old and young – worshiped together every Sunday, amidst the graves and memorials of those who had gone before. Virtually the whole country united to welcome the Pope in 1979. We came together in church for baptisms, weddings and funerals, all familiar with the rituals, as previous generations had been. I do not believe many thought about or necessarily believed the literal truth of much of Catholic teachings – certainly my family did not. Those who believed for example that rosaries or direct intercession by the Virgin Mary explained good exam results or recovery from illness were seen as a bit crankish. But many of us benefited from belonging to a community of experience, with shared cultural reference points. All that is gone now. Yes, bad things happened in plain sight in Catholic Ireland. But so they do today in post Catholic Ireland – but without the social cohesion, shared rituals and moral framework which were a feature of the old dispensation. Critics like Dawkins were determined to destroy much of value, and offered nothing to replace it.
Dawkins, Linehan and others achieved what they wished (perhaps) but both have now discovered it wasn’t as they expected.
Most amusing of all is watching Prof Dawkins in the link Hendrik Metz provides, – not only is the video constantly interrupted by adverts for Islam and Ramadan (mine is anyway) Dawkins identifies characteristics of Gervais that I find ironically amusing. First his willingness to attack the status quo now sees him attacking the very things that arose from the destruction of the Christian Mores of the past, but best of all is Prof Dawkins praising his belief in science as ‘the search for truth’.
How ironic it is now. From the Green Cult scams destruction of economies and societies based on lies perpetrated by the likes of the ‘Hockey Stick” scientists to the terrifying consequences of the experimental mRNA ‘vaccines’ which their scientific proponents are doing their best to hide from the public, are successfully destroying the reputation of science as an alternative to religions.
Watching the video it seems that even Prof Dawkins views/beliefs of where his destination for society lay are made a foolish by time. May he find comfort in the Christian Culture, as I suspect the Islamic Reality isn’t something we will come to enjoy. Though it will be fit for the economic society the Net Zero proponents will inflict upon us. A new dark ages.
“Dawkins, Linehan and others achieved what they wished (perhaps) but both have now discovered it wasn’t as they expected.”
Indeed, and include Hitchens in this group of proud atheists who are now pulling their punches, realizing now (too late according to Hitchens) that that which they assaulted is the crumbling fortress that protects traditional Western civilization from barbarians both literal and figurative.
All Religions are based on a lie. Its a manipulated falsehood. There is no God, no angels, no saints, no devils etc. This is obvious to any serious thinking person. You can trace how, where and when the falsehoods began, why and how they were perpetrated. Its history NOT theology! Any societal sytem that is predicated on, or in any way dependent on, an obvious, demonstrable lie is doomed to failure and destruction.
The CofE is actively encouraging the take over by Islam , not least by claiming any attempt to cut down on migrants (mostly Muslim ) is unchristian.
My background is similar to yours, although in the US. I doubt many of the congregation at our Church thought much about formal Roman Catholic doctrine or whether they really believed it, but they were certainly part of a community and most tried to live up to its standards.
My strongest sense of the numinous, of the spiritual, is in nature, but I still love the rituals of Roman Catholicism. The theology never really made sense to me.
“….but they were certainly part of a community and most tried to live up to its standards“.
Comments like that always amuse me. While many of the laity might have tried to live up to the Church’s standards, it’s priesthood, by and large, did not.
I identify with much in the ongoing thread, on both sides of the argument. But I would not say that the Catholic priesthood by and large did not live by the Church’s standards (and by extension, I am looking at priests and ministers of religion of various denominations). If I look at the local histories of Catholic parishes in Ireland, for example, I see a priesthood which certainly had a lot more than it’s fair share of arrogance but which also contributed over and above what could be expected from culture and education to sport to even organisation of rural groups. I am very aware of the number of priests who behaved egregiously, but I believe that most of these were either compelled to go to the priesthood by families or else saw it as an avenue to power (and the abuse thereof) on their own. A number of these were so bad that they destroyed things for those priests who did put their parishioners first. Monastic life for men and women tells its own story with a similar mix of people drawn in, but again the vast majority of monks (clerical or otherwise) and nuns did do their best for those entrusted to their care and in a country like Ireland, it would be hard to imagine what state education and health services would be without them. The thing about those who will abuse their power is that they will never lack an institutional vehicle in which to do it, be this a religious congregation or a political organisation or whatever happens to be available to suit their purposes.
I agree with your last sentence. I guess what annoys me about the Church is not just that its clergy abused its power (which was bad enough), it is that it was so smug and holier-than-though when it did so. The whole “You must live by Christian principles. I obviously don’t have to, because I’m a Priest, but you do” thing really annoyed me. This is not just a Catholic thing. There was a stream of American televangelists getting sprung committing various “indiscretions” in the news for a while there, and there probably still is.
Why do you people get off on how morally superior you are. It’s like living in the 17th century and seeing witches everywhere. Life must be a nightmare for you. Wash out your filthy dirty minds and try and think of something else but sex for once.
“You people”? What sort of “people” am I?
Loads of priests had “housekeepers” and everyone knew that the lovely warm hearted and beautiful housekeeper to the local priest was really his wife,in truth,but people then had good manners and compassion,not filthy,dirty,snooty,snarky minds and they cared. I’m not irish,thank you God,but my maternal Grandmother was and grew up in Ireland.
Filthy minds always looking for sex and dirtiness in everything. I’m fed up with you Mr Mybugs piolluting our minds with your creepy witch finder proclivities.
Nicely put by Dawkins, I can subscribe to that view. I would however go a little further by extending that to all religions, since their heritage, architecture and so forth are always of interest and pleasing, for example and parking my cynicism for a moment I was once close to a mosque when the Adhan (Islamic call to prayer) was made and was stunned by it’s impact and beauty.
I would also suggest that the input to societies’ modern issues from religious groups are a very important contribution to debate and policy.
I’ll keep the God stuff at arm’s length however.
Great article. Well put.
… then watch Dawkins in conversation with Ricky Gervais, winner of ‘The Richard Dawkins Award 2019 for proclaiming rational and secular values and upholding scientific truth’ (link below). Shades of Matthew 27:39-41 IMHO. Dawkins is not your ally, I believe.
Link: https://youtu.be/b0BC3F0kqtw?si=jf8dbzg-CnjoUnud
What a great article to round off the Easter weekend.
I’m immune to any of the “belief” systems and baulk at the “God blessers” who frequent the Comments pages (always sounds incredibly condescending to my ears) but can appreciate the cultural heritage and communality.
What so many believers get wrong about many atheists is they think it’s about materialism and lack of spirituality. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Not having belief in a deity does not lessen the human drive to explore the best (in fact, all) aspects of our natures, and often leads to a greater exploration rather than just accepting the given precepts of organised religion.
This article sets out, briefly, why thinkers such as Dawkins should be valued, and i couldn’t agree more.
My concern with atheism is that it does not prescribe boundaries as religions tend to do. You mention exploration, but there are some places that don’t need exploring – the issues surrounding gender-bending spring immediately to mind, as an example. During my last reread of the Old Testament I received a sense of that, despite all of our technological advances and no matter how enlightened we feel ourselves to be, we are doing nothing new under the sun. I would even go so far to say that our technology is causing us to regress to an unwholesome pagan state that would have been wholly unthinkable just twenty years ago.
I like the term ‘cultural Christian’. It describes me to a tee and explains why some people hate when I bring up Christianity as a moral reference point while others think I am non-devout. I think the problem with atheism is that it does eventually become self-referential materialism, and the problem with that is that when everything is relative, the loudest and strongest always win out. We see that now where offending others is considered a worse ‘sin’ than offending God.
Over the years I’ve come to realize that religion acts as a source of energy in a way that atheism never can. Many of our problems in the West are due to the wholesale abandonment of Christian morality. This abandonment has not just made us spiritually weak, but also highly susceptible to powerful groups who would happily replace Christianity with a political-moral system that furthers their own ambitions while curtailing other’s personal freedoms. We are seeing this now where bad actors are championing fringe causes in order to be able to exert greater state control over the public – the new Scottish hate speech laws that come into effect today being a great example of that.
That’s a detailed, incisive and welcome response; thankyou.
The bottom line for me is this: when a belief system fails it leaves people feeling abandoned and prone to precisely the kind of ‘political moral’ system that causes us so many problems. There’s no doubt that belief systems do fail, which is why (for instance) those who insist upon adherence to the precepts of Islam require everyone else to be cowed into a state whereby they fear to criticise. That, to any honest appraisal, shows weakness, not strength. A belief system which is itself afraid of being challenged isn’t worth subscribing to.
Being an atheist simply means “not believing in a deity”. It does not mean having no spiritual resources – far from it, as i’ve frequently argued. Those resources don’t have to lead to a materialistic outlook or even a purely rational one. Most importantly: just because a lack of belief in a deity might lead to adopting a position based on political or scientific thought is no reason whatsoever for insisting that religious belief is the best way forward.
The aspect of ‘cultural Christianity’ the article enjoins us to consider is more to do with being humane. Looking after our neighbours, for instance, is the very basis of civilisation and preceded Christianity by many millennia. It’s “faith” itself which is the problem, i.e. requiring people to take an unnecessary leap which, when they find they can no longer do so, presents them with a greater loss than not having “believed” in the first place.
Most importantly: just because a lack of belief in a deity might lead to adopting a position based on political or scientific thought is no reason whatsoever for insisting that religious belief is the best way forward.
The aspect of ‘cultural Christianity’ the article enjoins us to consider is more to do with being humane.
.
I completely disagree with you and I will try to explain why.
We as human beings have not changed in the last ten thousand years. Religion has gropingly found the rules by which we must live in relative harmony with each other. These rules require efforts from the individual to follow them, these rules are external to the individual, they are uncomfortable for him, and, what is the most inconvenient, he must follow them, even if he knows that not a single human will know about his sin. If you accept them as an axiom, yes, it’s hard, but you can live with them. Once you are guided by “politics” or “science”, you step on the path that leads to hell. “Reason,” “politics,” “science” will helpfully tell you how to make your life more comfortable at someone else’s expense or rely on these pillars of the state that cares so much about you. The discussion here about the benefits of euthanasia and the example of Canada are an excellent illustration of where this path leads
No, the fundamental ethics in religions predate religions, predate humans. We can observe altruism in our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos, as well as fairness and mutuality, you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. These are the basic building blocks of ethics.
Humans have extended and formalized these, and with language have explored them in great detail.
gods are merely explanations for things for which we desperately want explanations, but have not yet learned enough to explain.
I consider myself an ethical Christian. I believe in nothing that cannot be tested. I appreciate others’ artistic achievements whether they are directed to their beliefs or anything else.
I don’t have a moral compass. So I know lots of other people don’t either.
Aged 17 and frightened and alone in a scary world I did not understand and had no one to guide me I thought the predator who sought me out to be my “boyfriend” would provide the security and future I craved. After six months he suggested we ” had sex”,he didn’t seduce me in a romantic way,and I ” knew” that being sexually active and “having sex” was the imprimatur of being a fully recognized adult and a full member of society,so I wanted to get on with it, especially as we would be getting married anyway. It was like that in my locality in circa 1973. Not much romance on either side. Why did I believe that about SEX,a lifetime of drip,drip,drip media education from tv,pop songs,books etc and just the everyday milieu of life around you.
But when the non event occurred,he went round telling everyone that,well I’m not sure what he told them but I found out that I was the local w***e,a person of no worth,easy,seems I should have said No,a thousand times No and been outraged and refused and declared my honour and got into stupid time wasting mind games. So my lack of a Moral Compass was my downfall.
And my fear for the future was unfounded. I have lived a life,on my own,a bit rackety but I’m here, like in the Sondheim song,however I wasnt that wrong about your sexual status being linked to your validity as a valid member of human society. I’m an outsider and always will be. A few years ago in a road near me,a young man,a nice good looking popular with lots of friends ha ha ha killed and chsinsawed up his sister. It was national news. He wasnt a “monster”. He wasn’t even mad,or weird or anything. Until he was apprehended he was like the most normal as normal,had loads of friends (probably still does,and I don’t ,wheres the justice in that),so where was his moral compass then. This innate moral compass idea is pants,it’s not true,and most of us don’t have one.
Last night at our social evening in the dwelling where I live,the name of one of the International Financiers,that Blessed Tribe came up,and it turned out that we ALL hate and loathe her. Despite her wanting to do us a favour by providing an exit if we don’t like her world,just a bit less violent than her compatriots are doing in the Unholy Land.
An interesting and helpful exchange between you and Lancashire Lad. Thank you both.
The Islamic belief system fails because it was created by, and wedded to – empire and expansion. It is the spiritual ethos for conquest.
Conquest implies getting more ; getting more implies expanding the story. The metaphysical claims get grander.
The voice of an angel in a cave, talking to a bloke who had seizures, wasn’t enough.
In no time at all, once the convulsive was safely dead, the claims grew, till they involved not one but seven heavens, and a flying horse to Jerusalem.
Wisely, they stopped writing and started trimming. Particularly the hadiths.
But expansion had happened, its downsides not sufficiently scoped.
Once expansion stops, & your empire diminishes, you cannot just roll back your religious claim.
You’d kept it simple, so it could be observed by soldiers on the move, and so it couldn’t be tampered with by competing clans you’d allied with.
Hence, you spent centuries telling people it came direct from God. A god who’ll suffer no second opinion, because he is an awful unity.
You are impelled to keep trying. No matter how the bodies mount up.
There is no getting away from the fact that Islam was created by one man, and Christianity was created by two (and I often wonder what the first of those two would have thought about what the second created).
Well of course. How can one get excited and enthused about something that doesn’t exist? No one is going to start singing and clapping about a person who didn’t come to earth and didn’t save us.
Contrived religious stories are not required for spirituality and civilised humanitarian cultures.
Then the good news isn’t for you and that’s totally ok.
Secular humanism doesn’t seem to be doing awfully well. What would your suggestion be ?
What gives you that impression?
It devolved into identity politics.
Wrong. Black people tend to be christians. Try again.
And black Christians are the best,most principled people out.
Holy war?
This abandonment has not just made us spiritually weak, but also highly susceptible to powerful groups who would happily replace Christianity with a political-moral system that furthers their own ambitions while curtailing other’s personal freedoms.
Of course, the Christian Churches have never contained powerful groups determined to further their own ambitions while curtailing other’s personal freedoms.
True. People have used Christianity in decidedly unChristian ways. No moral system is perfect and any that claims to be is lying.
I would argue that God’s moral system is perfect, it’s the users that commit the errors. Un-perfect people (there are no other kinds) will not do Christianity perfectly.
As far as I can see, they don’t do it even remotely competently.
Christian Churches have never contained powerful groups determined to further their own ambitions while curtailing other’s personal freedoms
Um….the Crusades and the Inquisition come to mind.
Yes, they come to my mind too. I was being ironic.
Well now we are experiencing how it is to be TOO tolerant and accepting and unquestioning.
Why aren’t you writing for the news instead of burying your insights in the comments??
A very interesting article but the author seems to assume that one can choose to believe.
How does that work exactly? Do I just close my eyes and try really, really hard?
Although I’m not familiar with the term ‘cultural Christian’ I seem to fulfil the requirements. I suspect life would be easier and possibly more rewarding(?) if I did believe but that is not something that I seem to have any control over.
How does that work exactly? —-> It happens all the time with people from all walks of life for different reasons and motivations. If it’s not your thing, then it’s not. Freedom of religion also includes the right to practice no religion at all.
It’s got nothing to do with whether it’s my thing or not, that’s the whole point. One cannot decided to believe in something, one either does or one doesn’t. I don’t believe that anyone can control what they believe in.
One can, of course, choose to follow or join any religion but really believing in its core tenants, you can’t chose to do that.
Agree completely that we can’t simply decide to believe a thing. Also, I am confounded mainly by the author’s assertion about how those of us “raised in scientific modernity” should “accept the historic reality of events like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.”
These events are not a matter of historical fact, they are part of the myth that was passed down through the centuries before any of the bible as it is known today was written.
There are less strident atheists, like Professor Brian Cox for example, who find beauty and a compelling wonder in the study of the physical universe. It is perfectly possible to be a fulfilled and temperate human being without having faith in any gods. I count myself among them. It is possible to find the ineffable in the physical as well as the metaphysical.
But that’s such a clever strategy (of Satan ha ha) why do we all have to be individual theological apologists. Why do we have to know everything about everything. Thats a relatively new idea in human culture. We all have to invent the wheel by ourselves individually.
Back in medieval days people were only expected to attend church twice a year,at Christmas and Easter. It was in Elizabeth 1s day that going to church every Sunday was made law,that was to flush out,show up,or stick it to the Catholics,so only rich people who could afford to pay could be defiantly and openly Catholic,but still with an element of caution. Not TOO flaunting. It’s like the Greek and Russian Orthodox today. You go ,you light candles,you kiss icons,you don’t participate in the Divine Worship, the Priest and his acolytes perform the liturgy like a Divine Drama,apart from and seemingly indifferent to the worshippers who are standing,milling about,arriving and leaving randomly. You just belong,you don’t have to know about any of it. It doesn’t matter. I quite like the mental relaxation of that.
Agreed.
There isn’t any easy answer. It’s possible to be delivered there time and time by one’s thoughts and ruminations but still never be able to take the final step.
It shouldn’t be forced.
It can only be given.
One awful aspect of Christianity is to see as less, people who who, doing the best they can are nonetheless not given faith.
They should be able to accept that God might have different ways of working with other people.
And after all, not every faithful person is a particularly good or effective person.
Maybe people who are given faith are given it, because of how bloody awful they’d be without it?
Well,without my rickety rackety pick.n mix faith in God (the cultural Xtian one) my life would be dreadful. I know because it was between the age of 15 – 30 when. I tried to fit into the secular world I found myself in and tried to conform to the secular ways of behaviour that were shown me as the.correct and acceptable way to be in order to not be a social pariah. And – I ended up a social pariah! Because they are liars. Like their boss Satan. They prey on people like me. When I knew doing it “My Way” (loathe that song,so did Frank Sinatra) was useless I handed control of my life over to God and my life turned around and became joyful and active and interesting. But as I didn’t do drugs,drink,fornicate,lie,steal etc it’s much harder to represent this life turn around. It wasn’t a matter of “stopping sinning,”as if Sin is particular actions which it’s not) and Jesus never showed up in my midnight bedroom for a chat,like he does with violent offenders and prostitutes.
No, I think that are 3 basic ways to come to Christianity. The lucky few are born in faith and never have been without it. A second group suffers a life crisis and, in their despair, they pray to God. To their astonishment, they are answered. Lastly is the group to which I belong. They see the design of the world and conclude that it is more likely that it was deliberate than ab nihilo.
I would probably tend towards the 3rd group but I see a big step from accepting that the design of the world was deliberate to accepting the tenets of any of the major religions.
Where do I fit in then? Both my parents were religious. My father “lapsed” somewhat despite being a lay preacher in his youth, but my mother remained observant to the end of her life. I used to accompany her to church as a child, but can never recall having a shred of belief in any aspect of Christianity, or any interest in what went on in the church (boring sermons and tedious music, from memory). Needless to say, I stopped accompanying her.
Define ‘deliberate’.
He’s lived long enough to see the children of his revolution devour themselves. The scientism, materialism and rationalism he promotes degenerated into nihilism, solipsism and stupidity.
It wasn’t his revolution. The writing was on the wall for belief systems long before Dawkins set out his views. Stating that what’s happened since is due to his writings is cultural blindness of the highest order.
He supported the revolution until it went too far for his liking, now he’s realising that revolutions are like speeding trains, he can’t stop it, and his allies are turning on him.
It seems that Richard Dawkins is beginning to realize how guilty he is of his “atheism for the crowds” and is seeking justification in the new mantra of “cultural Christian.”
I’m not sure that it works like that and, more likely, Dawkins will go down in history as one of the destroyers of Western culture, I don’t know as who, Marx or Heidegger or Marcuse
Christianity is a movable feast. It too once was a warlike and aggressive religion that attacked non-believers and heretics, driving out other religions and going to war against religious enemies while being used by tyrants to cement their power as the divine right of kings, with religious orders amazing huge amounts of wealth and land along the way.
Modern Christianity developed from the last C15th both from the power struggles between temporal and spiritual leaders, but in particular from Luther and other reformers – those who read the book and interpreted it differently and questioned and challenged the Catholic power structures with personal interpretations of what they read.
The turmoil of belief that drove the religious wars in Europe, that, in England, put pragmatism above belief created a milder and more rationalist Christianity that sought to understand God not just through the book, but through understanding the works also.
This means that modern Christianity swims with the Enlightenment, but follows it instead of driving it, allowing scientific thought to mollify and modify Christian beliefs with principles like hard-work, investigation and experiment, combined with Christian traditions of humility, penance, redemption and faith in human nature. And by easing away the religious guardrails, slowly science and rationality broke through the taboos that Christianity put in its path. The primacy of rationalism over faith.
We remain creatures of belief, and are also products of our history, but we have also learnt that what we believe may not be true. Beliefs should always be tested, and in that testing we may find deeper truths.
How can religious beliefs be tested? Don’t they have to be taken on faith?
By their fruit.
Well, on that metric, Christianity gets a big “Fail”.
Compared to Islam or marxism? On contrary, Christianity has made the world a better place, even for non-believers.
Two points:
1) The Islamic world was enlightened at a time when the Christian world was barbaric.
2) Marxism isn’t a “religion”.
The Islamic enlightened world didn’t have electricity,technical machines and gadgets like we do,to do pretty much everything needful to sustain civil life. They needed human hands,legs,human strength and human effort. In other words SLAVES..Which they obtained in vast quantities from Africa,black slaves bought from the Kings in Ghana,Nigeria,Benin all along that.coast brought over the Sahara by Arab traders on ancient trade routes. They also bought white slaves,from Ireland, Englsnd,the Balkans,they bought these from Viking traders. Every single one of these people was sexually neutered before being put to service in the Evil Empire. Some became wealthy and esteemed. Many were just worked to death. They were replaceable. But no way did the Arab,later Ottoman Empire allow their society to be weakened by breeding of the “others”. So I don’t see that as Enlightened at all. Cruel. Very sensible. But not enlightened
How?
Make a comparison.
Go to Tel Aviv.
See who runs all the charities who accept and help people of other faiths, or no faith.
Which religion runs them ?
Which religion’s priests fiddle all the kiddies?
Dirty minds. Snooty snarky thoughts. Just call me a prostitute hey,if you get off on it. Jerk off boy.
The clergy of the Catholic Church nowadays essentially amounts to a social club for paedophiles.
Do you see a chance that Islam will undergo a similar move away from warlike zealotry? It’s not simply a matter of math or the passage of time, but currently that religion is same age that Christianity was in the year 1482 (CE).
I’m not sure that the western way of life has got that much time to wait!
It’d be difficult. Islam was an ethos designed for conquest. The conquest came first ; the design of the faith second.
Perhaps. But Christianity was state-institutionalized quite early in Rome, then spread by the sword throughout much of Europe.
I know many see open hostility to the Islamic world as a realist response to their hostility–and I can understand that reaction. I’m worried about Islamist violence and zealotry too. But I don’t think the best approach is too diagnose the whole religion as fundamentally poisonous and deranged. There are quite a few lines of scripture that not even the most Orthodox Jews live by anymore (think “thou shalt surely stone them to death”).
I know many kind and peaceful individual Muslims–they are not rare in parts of America. Such believers may become a more predominant norm, partly based on our individual and collective dealings with the Muslim world. (And they damn sure need to “fix themselves” too). In the UK and elsewhere we Western folk can do a better job of keeping extremists out and reigning them in when they do get in.
Caution, even vigilance is called for; broadbrush condemnation of 2 billion people is not.
Kind and peaceful individual Muslims isn’t the point. So do I know them. I went to a mosque for Iftar this Ramadan, as I have often done, I’m pretty much always invited. I know a lot of Muslims. They value the fact that I do think about their religion and bother to inform myself.
Neither is it the point to typify the whole religion as deranged.
Islam does have premises, which it starts from, in order to challenge or deal with issues. As does any ideology or similar system.
Time and again, I see that those premises lead to Islam having a real problem in processing situations where common sense would suggest compromise, yet they cannot do it.
They seem able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to such an extent, that it made me start to research these underpinnings to see why.
You have reached for underpinnings and started to research indeed. I’m not saying there is no validity to your tentative (or fixed?) conclusions, but don’t assume you’ve got it figured out–yeah?
But kind and peaceful people make the best fighters
White Saviour Complex. Maybe those 2 billion people.arent interested in your patronizing pats on the head.
Or your literacy classes.
All those bored and idle Muslim young men,at present a bit superfluous. What they need is a good old battle. It’s all building up to that.
And you look forward to it, drooling. You’ll not have to fight in that battle either.
No. More like the other way. Bring it on. Ha ha
What kind of insulting nonsense is your series of replies?
Thanks for the patronizing pat on the head Smarty Pants.
I’m not a religious person, but I do think religion plays an important role in society. I’ve studied the religions of the world, even to the extent of teaching myself Greek to read the New Testament in its original language. I don’t believe in any of the religions, but I admire those who sincerely do, and try to be like them.
Especially Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, when he was 77, created the Jefferson Bible by cutting and pasting excerpts from the English, French, Latin and Greek New Testaments to eliminate the miracles and the mysticism and leave just the Christian ethic behind. He called the Christian ethic the best mankind has ever created. And it is.
So I try to follow the Christian ethic. I’m sort of like Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist who said he was a practicing Christian but not a believing one. He saw value in following Christian beliefs and attending church even though he did not believe in its tenets. Me too.
Our sense of right and wrong–of morality–comes from religion. So we are stronger as a country when we support religion even though some of us (maybe many of us) do not believe in it. Not to establish religion or discriminate against those who do not have the more dominant Christian beliefs. But to allow people to freely exercise whatever religion they choose to follow, if any.
So am I like Richard Dawkins? Not really. He’s more like an Albert Einstein, a cultural Jew not (except for ages 9 to 12) a practicing one. One who considered Judaism a “community of tradition”, and fellow Jews to be “tribal companions”. Not like Freeman Dyson, and not like me.
I admire the Catholic Church for some things, but find the doctrines of the Trinity and of transubstantiation to be fallacious. I admire the Mormon Church for some things, but find some things in its history hard to swallow: the first vision, the origin of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, polygamy, and the temple ceremony.
But I don’t discount all religious beliefs like Richard Dawkins. Take evolution, for example. Richard Dawkins makes a religion out of his neo-Darwinism, saying it can explain everything about the origin of species, with natural selection being the creator of all things. He thinks natural selection can even explain the evolution of the simple to the complex, fighting the forces of entropy that pull the other way.
I disagree that random mutation and natural selection create new species. In my mind, modern science has done a hard debunk of Darwinism in all its forms. The recent pandemic provides a good example. For the first time, through gene sequencing we could see evolution in action, right before our eyes, as the SARS-CoV-2 virus split into various variants. Did we see the gradualism of Darwinism? No, we saw new genetic sequences appearing out of nowhere.
That gives some credence to the intelligent design movement that grew out of religious objections to Darwinism. There does appear to be a need to explain the top-down design that we see happen in nature along with bottom-up evolution. In my view, “the third way of evolution” provides the best explanation.
These Easter interview comments on cultural Christianity by Richard Dawkins seem superficial, and I didn’t learn much from them. Much more interesting to me was the debate a couple of years ago between Richard Dawkins (an atheist scientist) and Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian scientist).
..
“In my mind, modern science has done a hard debunk of Darwinism in all its forms”
It either has disproved it or it hasn’t. I’d like to see the evidence behind that statement. Evolution of existing species seems very well substantiated, and is entirely unrelated to “new” species.
There is no “evidence” whatsoever for “intelligent design”.
Charles Darwin’s theory is that the origin of species is by means of natural selection. Natural selection picks out individuals in a population who are more fit because of the variations that naturally appear in them. This evolution of a new species is a gradual process over many generations. Small steps, not leaps.
We have never seen that happen. Instead we see new functions appear in leaps, in a single generation from parent to child. Barbara McClintock, Carl Woese, Lynn Margulis, James Shapiro and others have contributed to our understanding of how genetics changes over time. Novelty appears in leaps, and leaps cannot happen randomly. They need design.
With advances in statistical mechanics, Claude Shannon’s theory of entropy in information, and the study of complex adaptive systems we understand better the mathematical challenges to neo-Darwinism. Nature cannot create complexity through a gradual process of random changes and natural selection. That process decreases order, it cannot increase it.
Outside of life, there is no design in the universe. There is no information. Those are abstractions, and nature does not create abstract things. But life depends on design and information. The human brain is “a cathedral of complexity”, of such a stunning design we humans with all our intelligence cannot begin to build anything like it.
Where does all this design come from? No one can explain it. Charles Darwin didn’t. Neither can Richard Dawkins. It’s a mystery.
But as bin pointed out,this theory whether or not was what Darwin meant, some say it’s others malign interpretation,it’s about the survival of the “best adapted” so in human society terms that does not mean the physically strongest, intellectually keenest, and bodily.fittest. It can do,but if you live in a society that pays you to be physically and/or mentally ill,to pop out babies with no sense of responsibility,to be clumsy,stupid and unemployable then those people will proliferate. I’m one of them so I have insight into this. It’s about successful adaptability not strength and beauty.
Now,THEY own the science. One of them said so. They pay the piper so they call the tune. Scientists say what they’re paid to say.
“we saw new genetic sequences appearing out of nowhere” – I thought random changes followed by success or failure depending on their fitness was exactly what Darwinism was about.
You are right that Darwinism is about repeated cycles of random changes and natural selection. What we saw with the genetic sequences that appeared in the virus were changes too sophisticated to be random.
We saw leaps, with no evidence of intermediate steps. A gain in function between generations. Darwinism cannot explain that, since Darwinism is based on the principle “natura non facit saltus”. We see natura facit saltus.
Of course we could have just missed seeing the intermediates. But in more than 150 years of Darwinism, we have never seen a single example of Darwinian evolution.
Instead we see things like symbiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, natural genetic engineering and other ways in which new design appears in organisms. Where does the design come from? No one knows.
I recall a few years ago, I loved and still do that show “Unbelievable” on premier christian radio. It was then hosted by Justin Brierley who.built it up to a huge following by his civilized hosting of it. One time id dropped a plan to go out so put the radio on (had no online then, bliss) and I was stunned. Not electric shock. Justin has had a booked speaker.drop out last minute ,so – wait for it,Richard Dawkins,THE Richard Dawkins had agreed to take part instead. The Richard Dawkins who’d declared he would never debate with Christians. Just hold them up to ridicule.
It says a lot for Mr Brierley charm integrity and totally civilized character (how did he keep his patience and not want to shout at some of the debaters) that Prof Dawkins was so quick and happy to do this thing.
It was a good debate too.
I would be the first to express my admiration for a lot of the architecture commissioned by the Christian Churches, but there it largely ends. That is not to say that I take issue with the reported words of the human being who subsequently became known as Jesus Christ. It seems he said much of merit, and was well ahead of his time. It is just everything said and done in his name between his lifetime and the present day that I have no resonance with.
–
Oh FFS UnHerd, I only a comment about church choirs. You effing eejits, stop cancelling people’s comments here.
I suspect it’s that you embedded a hyperlink thereby triggering a review; not your content.
//
So while on the topic of appreciating — if not actually practicing — our Christian heritage, let’s be aware that another site of the cultural revolution is the disbandment of church choirs, and the educational opportunities that go with them.
This is being done by the usual revolutionary professional-managerial elites who know better than the rest of us; and done on the pretext of opaque “reviews” they conduct, which somehow always find that choirs aren’t in step with progressive moral standards. The underlying problem seems to be problematic lack of diversity: shutting down church choirs is deemed to be a step toward greater diversity.
This has appeared in The Critic https://thecritic.co.uk/disbanding-st-johns-voices-would-be-cultural-vandalism/
(And, OT, do be sure to read Brendan O’Neill’s latest in Spiked, possibly his most vitriolic attack on the “progressive aristocracy” yet.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/01/the-unbearable-sanctimony-of-the-pro-palestine-set/)
/
What? I didn’t know this.
As an atheist I still appreciate the beauty of church architecture and the awes it inspires. I love also the peace and quiet and brief escape from the pressures of modern life that sitting in a church or cathedral brings.
Believers are often scathing about any atheist who professes to appreciate and love the art & architecture made by those inspired to create them through religious faith.
Prehistoric cave paintings were possibly inspired by some belief in unseen gods or entities, but I don’t have to believe in those to appreciate them or to be entitled to benefit from their artistic legacy
Cultures evolve. Surely we may all be allowed to benefit from and appreciate art that reflects the mores of previous times, even if we no longer share them?
The half-arsed Christianity of Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and so on is just plain ludicrous. They like Christian cultural artefacts, and the type of societies Christianity has produced, but just because they are (understandably) alarmed by the Islamic world, is not a reason to buy into Christianity. This version of Christianity is one that says: ‘can y’all get on with being Christian please, so we with more brains can enjoy it’s lovely products without all that tedious god business’ – it’s the Giles Fraser school of Christianity, completely self-serving.
The idea of all these atheist intellectuals suddenly buying into Christianity because they are panicked about radical Islam is laughable.
I’m sharing a fascinating article that I think relates to how much religion can influence culture and the trajectory of society. It’s about Islam in particular, but others are wondering if Islam will every have a reformation or enlightenment in the way Christianity did. I don’t think it’s possible for reasons the article discusses at length. Islam doesn’t allow civil governance, science, or the arts to exist separately from religion, it’s built into the framework in a way it never was with Christianity.
All Religions are based on a lie. Its a manipulated falsehood. There is no God, no angels, no saints, no devils etc. This is obvious to any serious thinking person. You can trace how, where and when the falsehoods began, why and how they were perpetrated. Its history NOT theology! Any societal sytem that is predicated on, or in any way dependent on, an obvious, demonstrable lie is doomed to failure and destruction.
April 1st! A beauty.