Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

Well I would say that for Dawkins in specific, yes this seems a bit hypocritical. You can't blast religion as much as he does and then enjoy reveling in its "culture" without a tad bit of chutzpah.That said, I don't think atheists or non-Xians in this case, can't enjoy this time period... including Xian iconography and other "culture".People travel to different lands and cultures and enjoy unique aspects of these other people's traditions, so why not at home as well?If anything this phenomena, blending of religious traditions, seems much like how paganism was a long time ago. Many gods, many traditions, you could sample them all as you like.I personally think a lot of artistic energy has been spent on Xianity, and I don't feel odd enjoying its beauty. To me the truth of the iconography is about as relevant as the truth found in Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter. You don't have to believe in its reality, to enjoy aesthetic qualities and some meanings words or images might contain.I suppose it might be important to point out that Xmas was sort of lifted from pagan traditions. So it might be asked if Xians feel a bit hypocritical celebrating pagan festivals. From what I understand some are upset by this and avoid traditional Xmas revelry, or Xmas altogether.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

When he is promoting atheism, he is not a scientist. It is this misrepresentation by himself and others that support him, that irks me the most.You can be both, but they should be as carefully separated a role as Xian and President.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

The following was the quote, by you, I was addressing... Perhaps I do not understand what you meant by misrepresented as a figure in modern science.He is usually addressed for his views on atheism, which is not part of modern science. I don't know anyone falsely attacking him as being in error as a scientist, which is the only meaning I can get from the above sentence.On the other hand, he is usually quick to tie his atheism into his role as scientist which I do not think is valid. He can be a fantastic scientist and a complete nutball with regard to his religious convictions. One has no bearing on the other.Yes, he's a scientist. Yes, scientists are allowed to promote atheism. No, atheism is NOT based in science. A lack of belief can be held without one bit of knowledge of science or its methods. Indeed it is theoretically possible that science could start delivering evidence which makes atheism less tenable. That is not a sociological claim, and he is not a sociologist. I certainly agree with your historian label, but this is not correct. And in this I would agree, but what does disputing creationism have to do with theism or atheism? And I don't mean that sarcastically, or in a nitpicky sense. I think that is a very real distinction. Atheism is not the natural conclusion of science. Where on earth did you get that? And while all supernatural possibilities are not beyond the reach of science, most such possibilities certainly are when they include claims which cannot be tested. That does not make them false, though one can of course question their utility.The point is that so far within science there is no NEED to include gods for an explanation. That is not the same thing as concluding there aren't, or weren't, any.You can be a scientist and promote atheism. It is simply incorrect to tie atheism to science as if the strength of science, or one's role in science, has anything to say about theism.By the way, when Dawkins is promoting atheism, he's being a philosopher. A metaphysician to be exact. Whoops!

The misrepresentation that he is talking as a scientist when he is discussing atheism.yrs truley,
numbskullP.S.- I do believe he is a scientist. And I would like all manner of atheists (scientists or not) to be more open and free with their thoughts, and critical of BS they see. I don't like the way Dawkins approaches the subject, both for his donning the mantle of science when doing so, and for his unnecessary venom which I believe is counterproductive. I guess you could say I am more along the lines of Dennett, or perhaps Jonathon Miller (who has an excellent series on the history of atheism). But then again, I'm just a numbskull.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I mentioned it earlier but I thought maybe I should go ahead and share a link to Jonathon Miller's Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief. The link is to the first segment of many. It is a BBC series. Each segment is about 10min each, and there are six for each episode.I found it interesting and inspiring. Maybe other atheists or theists will get some enjoyment out of it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yeah, but its his nonscientific ones, not his scientific ones, right? There are plenty of atheists that have no knowledge of science, nor use that as the basis of their disbelief. Hence atheism is not based on science.What is true is that science has helped atheists by pulling the teeth out of some common theistic arguments. So science has certainly been a benefit to atheism. No question. But one could live a very full atheistic life with no recourse to science. There are plenty of scientists that are theists so your claim is sort of dubious. Indeed many great scientists viewed their work as proving a divine creator.The evidence of science has so far pried away some specific tenets pf theistic dogma. And it has not required gods for explanations. That is something which atheists can enjoy, and point to for reason why they feel comfortable with their position... but that is not the same as the evidence leading to atheism. One has to provide that destination on one's own. What on earth is the "god claim", what were its testable claims, and when were they tested? Science is a target for very specific theists, because of some very specific claims made by those theists, which are undercut by evidence. All theists cannot be lumped into one group.How many scientists are atheists? How many are theists? I assume someone that is an atheist would naturally gravitate toward science when looking for answers about the natural world. If there is a reason for greater numbers that might be the explanation. I have personally known too many theists who were scientists (and pretty good too) to buy into your assertion. Okay, you let me know where Dawkins provides scientific evidence that there are no gods. The question of whether there are gods is a metaphysical question... it is philosophy, or theology.That one has not found any gods is something entirely different, than stating there are none.By the way I recommend the Jonathon Miller series on Atheism I noted earlier in the thread. It is a history of atheism (or disbelief) and includes interviews with Dawkins and Dennett. He also has a series called the Atheist Tapes, which are the complete interviews he made for doing the series. For atheists, it really is a nice overview of disbelief's place in history. I suppose its much like an Old Testament for atheism... persecutions and survival across the ages.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I agree that there is no real problem with atheists (or any nonXian) enjoying the festivities of recent Xianity. Why not?But I do have to question Dawkins in specific. When he maintains that its lunacy and produces so much evil, turning around and calling onesself a "cultural Xian" and caroling, seems a bit like calling onesself a "cultural Lunatic" and going about drooling and howling like a mad person.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Dawkins: Look, I just like wearing the suicide belt sometimes. It looks good it feels good, I don't say people can't wear them. And yes I sometimes take a gun to places I know abortions are being carried out, but its not like I believe their god is telling me to do these things, I'm just sharing in the joy of these cultural experiences.{AbE: just to be clear... heheheh}Edited by Silent H, : heheheh

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I could care less whether he does anything at all, but that is not the same as answering a question if it is hypocritical... which was the question.I happen to agree there is no hypocrisy for an atheist to do something like that, but as I've said upthread when you beat xianity and theism with an ugly stick as much as he does, it is a tad askew to announce onesself a cultural xian and join in the rejoicing.It doesn't keep me up at nights... and I doubt it bothers LL that much either. But it was an interesting way to raise the question.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Okay, I don't want to make this into some big thing. But I was trying to point out her question was about the existence of hypocrisy, not whether anyone cares about the hypocrisy.Your answer seems to combine the two, and insinuates she shouldn't care. That is if she does she should deal with it.I didn't see her "caring" about what he does, just pointing out the potential hypocrisy to raise a question about atheism v enjoying Xian holidays.If my distinction isn't clear, we can just drop the matter. It isn't that important.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I totally agree and don't believe the age of enlightenment was a misnomer, even if a bit of pat on the backing. The Renaissance and age of enlightenment pulled us out of a long period of imposed ignorance, for the purposes of maintaining power.Unfortunately, I think the age of enlightenment is well over, and we are now entering a period of self-imposed ignorance, for the purposes of maintaining individual arrogance.Practical reason is being subverted by those who use it, and its products, to cast their own personal visions on everything. I really do believe Dawkins is one of those kinds of people. No I have not read his books but I have read articles by him, and seen numerous interviews, lectures, and documentaries with him (usually by him). Indeed some have just been him reading from his book (one hilarious one where he is reading it on what appears to be a boat cruise in white t-shirt and shorts).I am very much an atheist (agnostic, whatever) and love science, and I believe he is doing both a disservice. The more I hear him discussing what he believes and what he wants to do (shaping other peoples beliefs), combined with his bizarre reverence for Xian culture (while alternatively blasting it as the product of insanity), makes me think he simply became jealous of priests and wants to knock them out of the pulpit and place himself there. Yes, I believe he does not like the mythology, except as fantasy material, but he loves everything else.Here are two issues I'd like to see addressed by anyone who is a Dawkins supporter, and thinks he is not being hypocritical. For a man who popularized the concept of memes, why would he want the words and concepts contained within religious culture... that he considers a form of viral insanity... celebrated just as it always has been? On top of the idea of finding reverence for particulars you think were generated by lunatics, doesn't this perpetuate the meme? At the very least on a subliminal level? You can't have kids growing up with Xmas carols and imagery and not have some of them get interested and begin to believe what they are singing, reading, and watching. Or take away the moral drivings found within it.In fact, I find it very funny how many atheists (Dawkins especially) who argue that it is important for everyone to keep Xian culture going. That it is important to understand, or you lose something substantial. That you cannot understand or appreciate great Western literature/art as much as you should, without knowing the Bible and its stories. Really? How many Xians know the Bible and its stories? And is he telling me that he cannot appreciate greek or roman or japanese or chinese or indian etc cultural works without full knowledge of their religious texts/stories? Come on.I really don't think there is a problem with atheists enjoying parts of theistic culture, but intentionally perpetuating it as important, and taking on some of the worst aspects of theism (namely evangelizing and dogmatic tenets)... ugh. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.Edited by Silent H, : -n

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Exactly. The people in the middle end up looking like extremists to both sides, and get blasted by both just for saying maybe we shouldn't be so mean to one another.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I have found it quite amusing to read Dawkins's supporters trying to evade the very obvious, that he is being a hypocrite.One of the first defenses seems to be to extend this to all atheists, as if to call him hypocritical all atheists would have to be considered that as well, but why? Dawkins speaks of Xianity as a delusion, viral, its stories and lessons horrific, and even its moderate members as enablers of terrorism. But then delights in its beauty and describes himself as a cultural Xian? There is an inconsistency there. And not all atheists engage in that dogmatic attack on others. So it is false to use that argument to defend Dawkins.One of the latest responses has been to argue as if celebrating Xian culture and calling oneself a cultural Xian is the same as using words in every day language which came from Xianity (or other theistic backgrounds). But that is not the same as Sin rightly argued. It would be horribly inconvenient to try and communicate while shunning words based on their etymology. But there is no inconvenience in not celebrating Xmas... Jews and other religious people do it all the time, especially if they find Xianity repulsive. I mean does he celebrate all the other holidays as well, if not why not? In any case, he could certainly avoid partaking in the rantings of the lunatics he castigates so frequently.So to this the rebuttal comes an answer maybe it is not convenient for Dawkins to avoid Xmas. Maybe his wife isn't an atheist? Well how would that force him to call himself a cultural Xian? How would that force him to love Xian music? In fact, why does he say Xian PRAYERS at a meal? Here is a video where you can hear it from the horseman's mouth. Its a video of four prominent atheists discussing their affinity for Xian revelry (though Hitchens does it a nice jab) made by Dawkins for his own site. Actually its from a large video (which I recommend to atheists) called The Four Horsemen, where Dawkins and co discuss their strategy for advancing atheism over theism. The fact that he called it The Four Horsemen alone shows an errant way to promote yourself as non-threatening to Xians, while at the same time draping yourself in Xian imagery! He just can't let go.But more to the point than what his wife could or could not make him do, or what would be called convenient if one had a theist wife...Dawkins would marry a Xian? A theist? That doesn't subtract from the hypocrisy, it would only multiply it. What kind of dysfunctional relationship would that have to be? I love you, you delusional supporter of terrorism! I love you too big D!All of this rings familiar to my eyes... When Conservatives who have bashed gays endlessly, get caught with their pants down (and men kneeling in front of them), these same Dawkins supporters have their chuckle. They can see the hypocrisy. But when it is their own bigot on the block, just like fellow conservatives for those "cultural gays", they stand behind their man... maybe even more so. They don't see what's wrong.Why do I get the feeling that if Dawkins were to be caught wearing papal garb and trying to get anointed as the second coming of Christ, there'd still be people going to bat for him?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This is a nice reply. And in part I agree. No, I agree one can find aesthetic interests (and perhaps some others) within cultures whose other tenets you dislike... perhaps intensely. This latter part is where I start having some issues, particularly if we are discussing Dawkins.My first point would be to say we can always find brotherhood and connectedness outside of any patently religious source. I'm not sure why a person who finds religion so awful would want to use those rituals as the glue.Second, Dawkins has championed the concept of memes. He states that the god meme is viral. It is rather odd to believe maintaining arcane rituals and music based around faith in gods, is somehow going to diminish the presence of this meme. Indeed, for some strange reason he believes to understand the words and meanings of the words in religious music actually helps a person enjoy it. Other than historically, how would it help?Thirdly, he argues that moderates empower fundamentalists. His use of religious material and practices most certainly empowers moderates. That would seem to be inconsistent.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well that kind of argument won't get you very far. I agree with portions of what he says, and disagree with other portions. Or does my opinion not count? Heheheh... just razzing ya a bit. Yes, you are right about that. It is something that Rrhain pointed out as well. But I think there is a difference with the position Dawkins has taken. The very existence of religion is problematic to him, and its thought viral and delusional. That would logically start impacting what you can take from it to be "worthwhile".Again, unless a person is inclined to enjoy the howling of asylum inmates, and repeating any delusional fantasies they may have right in front of them?Further he seems to take more than a casual delight in elements of that culture. There is a line between saying, so that music could be enjoyable, and saying knowing the words (praising god) makes the music even better. Really? So he can't appreciate African music, without understanding any religious meaning within the words they might sing?There is also a huge line between saying one appreciates aspects of religious culture (of all kinds), and specifying that one is a "cultural Xian". Especially as a liberal scientist, one would expect him to be at least equally "culturally Jewish". Actually "evil", no. Evil does not exist. As a term describing something generally malign and causing much pain, yes they would be described as evil. Without question total bastards. One look at Goering and you know they weren't all health freaks. While many of them were into: health, environmentalism, vegetarianism, animals, that was not a mandatory tenet of Nazism. Or perhaps better put, that was not something unique to Nazism, as Xian music really is Xian music.And here is where I can produce an example that might change your mind. Would it make sense... not be hypocritical... for a Jew who routinely berates racism, and condemns the Nazis, to announce (s)he is a "cultural Nazi" and wear uniforms, or sing their stirring songs of nationalism? To suggest people need to understand the words praising Hitler to enjoy the music better? If you believe there is a war against you, and that it is imperative the other side be stopped. That their very existence... even in moderation... leads to fundamentalist violence, and spreads virally... then I would say there is some hypocrisy. Otherwise, what you just wrote indicates no hypocrisy.I too am tired of the rise of thoughtless fundamentalism, and its effects on our society. That is not the same as what Dawkins is arguing. It is having specific problems with a faction, and their effects. That's all. Well again, unless you are taking the position Dawkins has, that doesn't seem hypocritical. Do you believe religion must be ended?That said, you don't really pray to God (Hank) do you? Isn't it simply repeating the gestures and words others are doing? Here's an interesting anecdote about an atheist on that same subject. Heheheh... then you are blind. This would be like a Nazi marrying a Jew, or vice versa. You can't find the person you are marrying delusional, and their thoughts both false and needing to be ended on earth, and have a healthy relationship. I'm not sure what the wife thing has to do here. Do you mean he wasn't trying to hide his pleasure of Xian culture? That would be a slight difference, but only slight. That's why I think Dawkins supporters are even more divorced from reality on the subject than gay-congressmen supporting conservatives. The equivalent would be that the anti-gay congressmen openly enjoyed gay culture, touting himself as "culturally gay" (let's say "metro"), and the rest saying nothing. If you're just going to appreciate the music, or the scenery, then no... unless your anger is so great that you feel the people around you are empowering terrorists, are wholly delusional, and their thoughts not only infectious, but must be ended for humanity to see a better day.I think people who simply do not believe in gods, are not hypocritical in enjoying the fruits of religions. They can even be upset with some of the more extreme elements of those religions, and not like the effect some of their religiously inspired policies have on the nation. Those are topical, specific issues... not existential ones.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard