Richard Dawkins, the Pope of preachy atheism
Posted on February 2, 2012With today’s almighty row about secularism, atheism and religion, it seems like an opportune time to repost this article I wrote on why Richard Dawkins does atheism a gross dis-service by acting like a religious zealot.
Dawkins was on the Today Programme this morning, debating with Occupy-luvvy and former Chancellor of St Paul’s. With two of my least favourite public figures fighting against each other, it was a bit like the Iran/Iraq War, in that you rather wish they could both lose, but in the end it was wonderful to hear Fraser expose the absurdity of Dawkins’ illogical approach to attacking religious people. Listen here.
Tags: Atheism, BBC, God, Occupy, Radio 4, Religion, Rev Giles Fraser, Richard Dawkins, St Paul's Cathedral, Today Programme
Having listened to the clip, I don’t think Richard Dawkins was attacking religious people. He pointed out that many of those who self-identify as Christian do not have the specific beliefs that one would normally associate with Christianity (such as a belief that Jesus was the son of God). They may, however, have some much less specific belief in the existence of God, as Giles Fraser mentioned.
I think that what follows from this is that if we want to base any public policy, or structuring of our institutions, on the proportion of people who claim to be Christian, we must be aware of what that proportion really means. If it merely means that a substantial proportion of the population has some belief in God, which tends to get labelled as Christian because of cultural background, then the size of that proportion will not in itself justify a claim that our society is deeply attached to a Judeo-Christian heritage, of which we should take special account. If any claim to such attachment were to be made out, it would need other support.
Absent such support, it would be hard to think of a reason to attach weight to that heritage in policy-making unless one could demonstrate to people at large (and not just to oneself, if one happened to have religious conviction) that there was indeed a God.
14.02.2012 23:41
Good try Richard, but it won’t wash. It’s not up to Dawkins to define for people whether they are Christian or not: if they describe themselves as Christian then they are, according to their own belief, Christian.
“..unless one could demonstrate to people at large …..that there was indeed a God.” Really? I mean, really?
15.02.2012 15:23
The thing is that Dawkins doesn’t act like a religious zealot. Its a complete fallacy to project the negative aspects of the religious on their opponents. Dawkins, like him or not, bases his world view on logic an gets his facts from science, not fiction. A man like Dawkins is incapable of zealotry by the very meaning of the word.
15.02.2012 16:32
Hello Recusant
If someone defines himself or herself as Christian, then he or she will indeed think of himself or herself as Christian, obviously. But when we think about any public policy implications of a substantial proportion of the population regarding itself as Christian, we have to understand what that means. Does it, for example, count against policies that Christian churches might be expected to oppose by virtue of their doctrines (abortion, gay marriage, etc)? It would not count against such policies if the people who said they were Christian did not subscribe to those doctrines.
My point about demonstrating to people at large that there was a God was meant simply to offer an alternative reason for taking account of the traditional doctrines, and/or the distinctive general approaches to life, of religions. (The word “distinctive” is important. If a religion recommends the same approach to life as is normal amongst non-believers, it does not add anything in respect of approach to life, although it may add something in respect of doctrine.)
You might let those doctrines or approaches influence public policy, either because a large proportion of the population subscribed to them, or because you could show that they had some validity independently of whether people subscribed to them – which would, I think, involve showing that God existed. What someone with political power could not reasonably do would be to let those doctrines or approaches influence public policy because he or she happened to have some religious conviction.
I am perfectly aware that it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of God to the satisfaction of the public at large. And in case you had not guessed, I am perfectly sure that no God exists.
15.02.2012 16:36
Thing is Dawkins just provides the opposite of what is constantly shoved down peoples throats on a daily basis – i.e. daft religions.
He might be a little pushy but then so are many, many chrisitians, muslims etc etc who try to tell you that their fairy stories are REAL!
12.04.2012 12:41