Cultural Christian

anthonyqkiernan Dec 14, 2007 11:15:10

I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.

This blog kinda echoed my response to that

McGazz wrote:

Dawkins is a C of E Atheist. While he imagines himself blazing a trail, and speaking truth to power, he's actually a peculiarly old-fashioned bourgeois liberal, with as much interest in changing the world as I have in the music of Newton Faulkner. He wants to cut off the King's head, then place the mouldering corpse back on to the throne and continue to bow and scrape in front of it.

Rhiannon Dec 14, 2007 12:11:00

Replying to anthonyqkiernan

I think you're being a bit unfair. After all, the man is trying to open people's eyes to the logic of evolution (and as an aside, the unnecessity of believing in a god) - which should make people sit up and try to think for themselves. Does he really have to provide an alternative to our current culture? I'm not sure that's part of his job. There's plenty of people who'll come up with something in that department. I think he's done a lot for the Cause - I think he should be allowed to smoke his pipe and watch the cricket (as that blog criticises him for).

Besides, is the c of e thing so bad - if people try to be nice to each other because of some deeply ingrained thing. It doesn't have to have any real connection with religion even if that's what most people would unthinkingly connect 'morals' to if you asked them (yes I wish they would look into it and have a think perhaps - changing stuff like that comes down to teaching a bit of philosophy in schools maybe.

ah I dunno.

handofdave Dec 14, 2007 12:20:16

Replying to anthonyqkiernan

Not radical enough?

It sounds more to me like he's admitting that Xtianity (or any entrenched religion) is not going to go away because atheism demands it. Which is a pragmatic position.

You don't change people by attacking their beliefs. That usually just makes them dig into their dogma even further.

I'd be satisfied to see Xtianity move towards it's own ideals, actually... the ones that reinforce tolerance, compassion, etc. and not the old testament power-tripping shit. It's conceivable that this goal could be successful. I really don't care what someone else worships as long as they keep it to themselves.

Religion isn't going to go away. It's been in retreat for some time, tho, so in fact the atheists have made an impact.

shanshee_allures Dec 14, 2007 13:03:40

Replying to anthonyqkiernan

Agree with Rhi here, Don't see the point in lambasting Dawkins from that angle.
I've got my tree up, I like Easter eggs (Green and Blacks, mmmm.)
I don't beleive in 'God', neither do I belelve in vampires, but I loved Christopher Lee as a kid!
Glad to read Dawkins isn't waging a war on Xmas carols, that would make him a total nut!
;-)

EDIT: And to me the 'rival religions' bit comes across more as religions that are rivals and ultimatly biting itself on the ass, not Muslims v Christians, as this guy seems convinced of.

hedlite Dec 15, 2007 16:43:04

Replying to anthonyqkiernan

i think dawkins did an excellent job in deliniating the mindless bigotry that just starting out on soft religion can lead to. personally though, i find it ironic that someone of his intelectual capability would use this information to try and lend weight to what is ultimately another 'belief'. surely the purely scientific approach would be to remain open minded to all possibilities?

Littlestone Dec 15, 2007 23:06:21

Replying to anthonyqkiernan

I lived in a non-Christian country (non-monotheistic religious country actually) for close on twenty years. When I came back to England I was struck by how screwed-up our belief systems (both religious and philosophical) were. In my humble opinion 'Western' culture has made two great errors; the first was the wholesale adoption of Greco-Roman philosophy. The second was the adoption of Christianity as the 'right' and only religion.

It may sound impossible but imagine a country where people do not believe in a single god. A country where if you want to believe in something 'divine' you are shown that the divine is present in every tree and rock. Or if you do not want to believe in a divine presence at all that's OK too. Crazy? No, I know of one such country and I suspect there are a few others out there as well.

Once a society has stepped into that sort of perception even the sky's not the limit :-)

Father Sky Dec 17, 2007 12:45:53

Replying to anthonyqkiernan

I think McGazz must love Newton Faulkner with a passion!

Dawkins accepts that our present culture has been shaped by Christianity, he doesn't want history to be denied, but I bet he really hopes we develop our future culture away from religion. Dawkins very clearly does want to change the world - he wants to persuade more people to rely on a rational scientific framework for life. He wants more people to learn and understand what science is all about. He also wants to steer people away from irrational beliefs. Quite how successful he will eventually be who knows (and his borgeois image probably doesn't help), but his books, tv programmes, and website show that he is really pushing this.