In this segment, Richard Dawkins, the famed evolutionary biologists, zoologists and author,
is apparently endorsing the culture associated with Christianity in the face of rising Muslim
populations around the world. The author of The God Delusion has taken a hard
line approach to insisting that gods are essentially made up. But could this hard
line actually be softening as he advocates for the cultural aspects of Christianity? Scott,
can you elaborate more on this article? What's Dawkins talking about? Sure?
Sure, So you know we've all heard of Richard Dawkins. He's well
known in addition to the scientific credentials you mentioned, but he's a well known
in the atheist community. In fact, he's maybe the most famous atheist.
If not the most famous, then he's definitely up there. And so he's
well known for his criticism of religion. So he was on British talk radio
recently where he was talking about his religious experiences and so on, and although
he was happy about the decline of Christianity, he still was kind of,
like he said, there was still a soft spot for it, and has
already called himself a cultural Christian. But then he specifically said he started disparaging
Islam uh in in exchange for these you know, puffing up Christianity, he
called, he said that Christianity was quote unquote fundamentally decent when compared to Islam.
And that's and you know, that's kind of a double standard. He's
he's it seems like what's good for the goose is not good for the gander
with mister Dawkins here, he's condemning things like or he's downplaying and dismissing celebrations
like Ramadan, while you know, while holding up how precious and celebrated Christmas
is and things like that. And his comments have not only just kind of
tipped his hand a little bit about what his real approaches, but he's also
it's it's kind of fanning the flames of anti Islam sentiments in Europe and especially
in the in the current political climate. His failure to then the same level
of nuance and understanding to all these different religions I think puts his credibility in
question, and his credibility as a critic of religious extremism and of intolerance.
The article, by the way, was written by hem and Meta at The
Friendly Atheist on April second, twenty twenty four, The Wonderful Hemet Meta great
material. I want to unpack this idea that Christianity is fundamentally decent, or
at least more fundamentally decent. And I think that that's something I want to
get back to later because I can't just gloss over it and ignore that for
the time being. But I do want to first pay attention to this idea
that maybe Dawkins has a point. I don't know. Are we, as
Westerners, especially us as Americans, more inclined to identify with Christianity or is
it the case that we as skeptics, or excuse me and let me backtrack,
are we more inclined to identify or be or have more in common with
Christianity than we do with Islam that's a piece. Or is it the fact
that the case that as skeptics we don't agree or conform in any way to
either of them? Does Does Dawkins deserve a little bit of credit here,
Scott? What do you think? Well? I think that you know,
you hear people talk about how you take credit for your successes and you blame
others for your failures, right, And I think we're kind of seeing a
little bit of that here you mentioned you know, what are we used to?
I can speak for myself. I was raised in a Christian family.
I did have the opportunity to live in a community predominantly Muslim community, so
I have a little bit of experience from from a couple of different directions.
But but yeah, I mean it's it's when you're a child, when you're
growing up, I mean you get used to things, you develop positive associations
with many things, and like so many of us, you know, I
remember going to church. I remember being with my family. I remember my
parents pitching that as a positive thing that. You know, if you want
to be if you want to grow up to be good, you need to
go to church. You have you know, you have to follow these rules.
You have to, you know, be this kind of person if you
want to be happy. And like anybody else, I want to satisfy my
uh you know, I want my parents to be proud of me. I
want my parents to be happy. And so if is he justified or is
he I mean I can understand where he's coming from, but I think the
emphasis should be more on the skepticism. I think that just much of what
Richard Dawkins talk talks about is how we we can so easily fall accept things
that are that make us feel good about the warm, fuzzy feeling emotional responses,
and and he's written much about how we should be careful of that because
that can be misleading. We know our emotions can lead us down down these
wrong paths, and so it seems I don't know, it seems like like
it's a disconnect in his mind, but you know, it's a normal human
disconnect. It's it's we all do it to some extent. And I don't
think he's necessarily a bad I do think he's a bad person for many other
reasons, but for this in particular. You know, I can't blame him
for having positive memories of his childhood, sure, but I think he needs
to take that extra step and make sure that the skepticism is the last word
in what he says. Yeah. Right, it's easy to get lost in
our history that we couldn't help. Right. We're brought up in these families
and these customs and cultures that we really are powerless to change, and so
we're kind of stuck with them until we, you know, make these small
baby steps, like, you know, perhaps we're doing just by having this
conversation Eli, just because our language and our phrases in English or in Western
society are riddled with Christian influence, does that make us culturally Christian. I
kind of understand what he's saying. I get what he's trying to describe.
I don't know if culturally Christian is the best way to describe it. I
did it first, and then I kind of changed my stance on a little
bit. I can relate a lot to what he's saying. Earlier today,
like somebody messaged me and asked me about like my thoughts on what happens when
you die, and I summarized it by saying, basically, like the body
that I use while I was alive becomes energy for other living things. Basically.
Then I went and looked at it later and I didn't say while I
was alive. I said while I was here, Like I don't believe in
a there. I don't think that there is one, so there by so
for me to say here is a product of the Christianity that I was raised
in. And I think the sort of the language and the imagery and the
ideas that are just so saturated in society. I think it's It was just
I didn't think about it while I was typing it, and I just went
back and read it later, and I was like, that's so weird,
and especially like thinking, like knowing that we were going to be recorded,
like doing this article today, and I was like, this is so strange
that this is happening to me. To call it culturally Christian again, and
I don't know what's the best way to describe it, but I absolutely relate
to having the mechanisms or the the isms, you could say, the Christianisms
kind of ingrained into just your habits. I say things like oh my God
and thank God. Sure, you know, stuff like that. Yeah,
well that's a that's a good a good segue, because I want to kind
of talk about some of the things that we pick up and we keep with
us. You know, Dawkins talks about celebrating, you know, Christian holidays
and things like that. You know, does do those Christians that that are
so inclined to celebrate Christmas, for example, does that actually make them a
little bit pagan or ancient Roman because that's where all of those customs were stolen
from. It's just a fun mental gymnastics to play, because you know,
nothing is fundamentally Christian, even Islam takes its roots from Judaism, and so
it's it's nothing really is owned by any one sect of the Abrahamic religion.
And that's where I kind of want to turn to infidel on because you know,
I mentioned earlier that I wanted to get back to this idea that Dawkins
says that when you compare Christianity with Islam, that Christianity is the fundamentally decent
religion, or maybe more decent religion. Infidel I know, just by knowing
you that you cannot possibly agree that Christianity is more decent. You know,
what is it that Dawkins is getting wrong? And should we have a preference
between Mosaic law or Sharia law for example? I mean, what should we
be more concerned with. Well, it's a little funny when you bring up
Christmas and how some Christians you know, to make them a little bit pagan
if they celebrate Christmas. I was raised in a Christian sect that didn't celebrate
Christmas. It was too pagan for us. So I think that when it
comes down to fundamentally decent, I think that Dawkins is looking at a far
more sanitized view of Christianity than I say most of us here in the United
States are first looking at as well what I look and of course, once
again goes back to personal experience. You know, I think that Dawkins has
allowed himself to be lulled to sleep by church bells and forgotten that, you
know, the doctrine that stands behind it. Whether it's the cathedrals he's talking
about, are the places that I went to growing up. This fundamentally decent
Christianity has been used to establish a patriarchy, to give an excuse for people
to abuse and beat their children, subjugate their their wives and women. You
know, LGBTQ is an abomination according to them, all these others, and
all these other people that I don't think it's going to make a lot of
difference to them in history, whether it was Sharia law or mosaic law.
Right now. For me, I'm concerned about mosaic law because it's the one
that's at my front door right now. And so I understand that if we
had a fundamental change of people saying, hey, let's put Sharia law in
the play, I'd be like we have a problem here, But last I
checked, we had Moses, Mikey Johnson and our Speaker of the House and
not somebody who's trying to push Sharia law. So with that in mind,
yeah, okay, I think both of them are just about equally terrible.
I think that up until the last fifty years or so, Christianity have been
moving towards a more liberalized view. We've seen something a lot different than that
in the last decade to twenty years. So right now, for me,
yes, it's definitely mosaic law my number one concern, and I see nothing
fundamentally decent about what we're talking about here, right and we know just based
on the tenets of Christian and ju Hebrew law that you know, some major
atrocities have taken place that their followers are completely fine with. And we know
that Christianity at its core is going to be something that is damaging to society.
We've got this long period called the Middle Ages where people were burned at
the stake for being witches, or for being atheists, for being homosexuals,
you name it. You know, this kind of thing, unchecked, really
can destroy a society. And that brings me to the point where I kind
of want to turn to Scott and get some clarification because I know that you
feel maybe we shouldn't be too hard on people, but we shouldn't be too
soft on their religion either, And so I'm kind of wondering where is the
dividing line between the rules of a religion and the people carrying out the instructions
of said religion. I mean, how do we approach that right right?
And that's a great question. Before I answer that, I want to give
kudos to Eli. I thought that was a great story that you shared about
your self reflection. I think it's a good reminder that as atheists it's important
that we also look in the mirror too, and that we assess ourselves and
that we are that we make sure that we're home holding ourselves to the same
standard as well. So thank you for sharing that. But to build on
what Jimmy, what you and Infidel were saying about about, you know,
the fundamental nature of this religion, I think that's what's one of the things
that's most asinine about and about what Dawkins has been saying. I think that's
that's the real problem, is he's kind of glossing that over. I mean
religions, as fundamentally religions are irrational beliefs. And so that's the problem,
and so much of what Dawkins has written is about specifically that. And I
think you're asking specifically about the distinction between the people and the religion. I
think that's the problem there. I think that's part of what he's. Part
of what he's what is pulling him in that emotional direction is his attachment to
people. But I think that he needs to That's why he needs to apply
it fairly. Okay, if he's going to look at the people of one
religion, then he has to compare those to the people of the other religion,
you know, just like any other you know, division of humanity.
We're going to have good people and bad people. We're going to have a
mixture, We're going to have people in how many different ways are the Bible
interpreted? Right, We're going to have people going all over the place starting
with the same material. And so if you're going to judge based off of
the off of what the what the people are doing, then then you know,
at least be magnanimous and at least be you know, fair about it.
On the flip side of that, we have the religion, and we
can't be lifting up a religion because you like the people that are involved in
that. I think the religion aspect of it needs to be. That's where
we need to be focusing our critique. That's where we need to be criticizing.
That's where Richard Dawkins needs to be remembering his his skepticism. And so
the line should be between you know, you hear this kind of the saying
in come from many different directions, love the sinner, you know, hate
the sin, that kind of thing, Criticize the action or the or the
or the the tenets, and respect and love the person. And so I
think that we need to if we're going to criticize a religion, then criticize
the religion. If you're gonna if you want to talk, if you want
to feel good about the people, then feel good about the people. I
think that's the decision there. That's the line that you were looking for.
Is where where the rubber meets the road, where the you know, where
the theology meets the practicality. I think that's where that this that distinction has
to be made. And I would like to see Richard Dawkins, who presents
himself as a skeptic, take that approach as well. Right, And you
know you mentioned that you don't have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins for
other things that he said, But you know, he's a he's potentially a
fine biologist or zoologist, you know, barring some anti gender comments that he's
made. I shouldn't say anti gender, but but transgender excuse me, anti
transgender comments that he's made. You know, he's not a very good historian
either, as we can tell. You know, he has no ide what
he's talking about when it comes to the nature of Christianity. And I'm not
even sure that we should even really care or at least Eli, I don't
think that you have a high opinion of Dawkins's opinion. Can you expand on
that a little bit? Yeah? So, I he of course is very
influential. Scott made this point earlier. Yeah, he was extremely influential to
me when I was coming into my atheism, and probably to all of us,
into many many people, and as well as I've gone on to start
learning about biology. A lot of what I now can remember is I remember
hearing him say as well So the thing is that I don't agree with them.
I don't think Christianity is fundamentally good in the fundamentalists are the ones that
I was hoping we're going to get raptured during the eclipse, because I was
really good border like that kind of like being down with But that aside,
even that I don't agree with him, I well, and that's the reason.
I well, that's not the reason that I don't care. But it's
essentially just that he's not dogmatically significant to atheism, like we don't need Richard
Dawkins to, you know, to we don't even to agree with everything Richard
Dawkins says. So, yeah, that's that's right. It's not that I
don't care. I think that if it weren't for his opinions about like the
things he said about transgend or thing like that, I might I probably would
give a little more weight to what he has to say. I'd like maybe,
But that doesn't change the fact that I don't think that it's right to
begin with. And his opinion about religion is just like his opinion about you
know, gender and opinion, and it's irrelevant. Okay, well, you
know, getting back to this, idea of cultural Christianity. You know,
I want to harken back to something that Infidel said earlier and then give everybody
a chance to wrap up. But if Fidel, you know, you said
you're more concerned with mosaic law than you are with Sharia law, because mosaic
law is what's on your doorstep. But is it potentially our inclination to align
with those mosaic roots through Christianity that keeps Sharia law and Islam from encroaching upon
our doorstep? I mean, are we choosing some consciously Christianity over something far
worse? I don't think so. I think that we're selling ourselves short if
we accept that, well, Christianity is a lesser of evil. So that's
what I'm going to go with. You know, this reminds me of Herci
Ali, who had became an atheist and really hates Islam. And I understand
very with for very good personal reasons, with knowing her life some of her
life experiences. But now she's converted over to Christianity and it's more of a
sounds like a political change than an actual spiritual change. And that's what I
see him doing here, and I'm not interested in going that route. I
think that as a society, if we have any hope of doing things better
than we have in the past, we're going to have to find new ways
to do those and I don't think that recycling the hat trick from two thousand
years ago is going to do that. Whether it's Judaism, Christianity, are
Islam, I think it's time we try something new. And I definitely believe
and maybe I'm being too hopeful, but I believe that we can definitely do
better. Absolutely. Scott thirty seconds closing comments befloor Is yours well. I
think one of the advantages of ascribing to a philosophy that's not authoritarian gives us
the freedom to criticize our so called leaders, right, and so I'm happy
for that. I think Richard Dawkins needs to put his money where his mouth
is, and I think he needs to if he wants to be a leader
in the skeptic community. I think he needs to be more skeptical and would
I would like to, you know, I would like to see him put
the focus back on where at least I thought it was once. Maybe that
can't happen, Maybe it can. I don't know. Sure, sure,
Eli. Mostly just that you know, a thin influential was he was.
I don't think that one opinion he has about religion in an interview that he
did is worth its own headline. And you know, much like Infidel was
saying. And I had the point of a second ago. I was trying
to catch it there and I just lost it. But I can end it
with that. I don't think that the one comment he made about religion there
is where its own headline. It just goes back to it. It didn't
really matter. Sure, sure. And I want to highlight what Scott had
to say about you sharing your story earlier, you know, because it shows
what we're all about here at the ACA and on the nonprofits, because you
were just casually or reinvestigating your preconceived notions, right, and that is a
work in progress. It's a constant work in progress being a skeptic to challenge
the things you think you know, to admit you were wrong, or to
kind of get to the root cause of why you think the way that you
think, rather than just giving up and accepting what people tell you. And
so I'm really glad that you were able to share that you had a real
life scenario that happened, you know, recent hours ago. Yeah, really
really, and you know it was fitting for the show and for what we
stand for.