Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

Does anyone else find this a wee bit hypocritical? Dawkins: I'm a Cultural ChristianChristmas is an increasingly secularised festival, particularly here in the UK where the majority of people do not go to church. Where I live there is a high proportion of Muslims, Hindus, and Siekhs. In classrooms, children of these faiths often join in with the celebrations to some degree and are happy to trade Christmas cards with friends.What does Christmas mean to non-Christians, and can it really have any kind of deep meaning?A topical thread for the season. Coffee House I think.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I agree that Christmas is a big celebration both in the UK and in the US, and people don't want to be excluded from it. I see no reason why they should be excluded, and why the ideas of peace and love shouldn't be celebrated.I was just trying to imagine Dawkins singing something like "Silent Night." What goes through his mind? I've been singing carols with my daughter, who has participated in a nativity play in school this year. I feel strange singing about God and Jesus.I was a devout Catholic until I was 18. I loved Christmas as any child would, but celebrating Jesus' birthday gave it a depth of meaning that it lost for me when I ceased to be a theist. It gave it a purpose, it connected me to something spiritual and universal. I still put up a Christmas tree, give presents, even sing carols -- all that kind of thing -- but it feels empty to me.To a non-religious person, what deep significance do any of our holidays have anymore? Getting together with family and friends to celebrate is important and special, I agree -- but what are we celebrating exactly?I wouldn't mind making Christmas into a festival of lights celebrating the winter solstice, but I run into the same theological problem there. This was a festival which no doubt became supremely important in the neolithic period, when people marked the seasons according to the crops that they grew. I can get the food I want year round, I'm sat in my warm and bright house, and I feel pretty divorced from nature.To conclude for now, I'll go back to Dawkins singing carols. If someone asked him if he believed what he was singing, of course he would say "no." That just jars with me somehow, if the songs are particularly religious.BTW Phat, the more I learn about Dawkins myself, the more I don't like his ideas. Funny, considering our respective positions.

Thanks but I'm honestly not interested in the PoV of an evangelical atheist. I don't doubt that he's made some insightful contributions to science. As someone else here said, it's the anti-spirituality that narks me to the point where I'm just unwilling to digest any of it.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I think I may have hit on what's been bothering me. Something special about Christmas deserted me when I left the Catholic faith. I could never throw out what I'd learned and go back to that, but it's felt like a loss all this time.I think it's the ritual element that was involved. For many, this human need is perhaps satisfied by their own Christmas traditions i.e. putting up a tree, exchanging presents, watching the football game and having a party with family and friends.For me, I think ritual needs to be a way of re-connecting with the transcendent. It's something that needs to be done quietly, in a peaceful and contemplative atmosphere. I used to like this about the church at Christmas: a special place serving as a kind of halfway-house between this world and the spiritual one; incense; singing; praying; being together in a mystical kind of way. And lighting candles. There's something special about light too, particularly at this dark time of year. Maybe there was more to the celebration of the winter solstice than just agriculture.Maybe these things can all be done whether it's Christmas or not. I think it does at least help to have some kind of peaceful time to contemplate things, amid all the hustle and bustle. Meditation, in whatever form, doesn't have to be religious.Still can't get over that funny feeling, though, singing about Jesus at Christmas

That's interesting Chiroptera. I do still like the atmosphere in churches, particularly the old cathedrals here. Last time I was in one I lit a candle; don't know who or what I was praying to exactly, but it felt like a good thing to do somehow.Sometimes as an agnostic, it seems uncertainty is the name of the game. At least it seems a better option than being closed-minded.It's fun to read what some fundamentalists think of Dawkins' Christmas celebrations. This is an entertaining read, for example: Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : Crap I'm tired.

Not sure what you mean here exactly, but assembling it for myself has been what the second half of my life has been about so far. I had to learn how to cast my nets much, much wider and still feel that it has somehow satisfied my need for spirituality. I'm very pleased about where I'm heading, with particular thanks to a handful of people on this forum who despite their efforts always seem to end up pushing me further in the opposite direction to the one which they intended.I think maybe it would actually be nice, on second thought, to celebrate the winter solstice. I'd just rather do it in a sincere way with a group of people, rather than in an eccentric way by myself.

No it ain't Crashfrog.What's more, making assertions like this isn't going to endear many fundamentalists to the bosom of science.

If all he did was publish a book on atheism, I'd simply not read that book, and quite happily look at the rest of his work. And as I said, I have no criticism to make of him as a scientist.The problem is that his atheism permeates everything he does. And I would define it as more than mere atheism. It is a kind of spiritual negativism, which you yourself so clearly expressed when you said, This is a valid point of view of course, but it does not necessarily reflect the Ultimate Truth (TM). Not everyone sees science as being in conflict with spirituality, and not everyone sees spirituality as a worthless delusion. A few people might actually be a wee bit insulted by such an assertion.Modulous posted a Dawkins video on a thread here a few months back. I wanted to gag after watching 5 minutes of it, though I'd approached the vid with an open mind, having heard people here singing his praises and not knowing much about him myself at the time. He takes all the negative connotations of world religions and then condemns them. Personally I don't see the issue as being one of whether or not there is a God, but whether there is more to life than what we experience with the 5 senses. I think humans are capable of much more than that, so why limit ourselves in such a way?

I understand where you're coming from here, given what you've said about your background -- you were lied to for years, and that's inexcusable. And I agree, a world view built on a tissue of lies is nothing more than gullibility or willful blindness. But there are adherents to all world religions who do endear themselves to science. I would be careful of tossing them into the same bucket.

Just to make things clear, I'm not a theist. And when I was, I never had a problem with evolution. I don't think I ever honestly had a position on atheists; I guess I just felt that was their choice. I certainly wouldn't have been accusing them of being amoral. Probably the most vocal group about this are the ones you are quite rightly embittered against -- fundamentalists.What bothers me is this very strong belief that any kind of spirituality is nonsense. I'm not talking about people who claim to have strange powers and for whatever reasons decide to subject themselves to scientific experiments designed by people like James Randi with an agenda (i.e. not getting at a truth objectively, but "debunking", which makes the predetermined assumption that it's woo-woo from the start). What about Buddhists, for example? Buddhism does not require belief in a god. It does not build its theology on top of lies about what science has discovered, and it does not oppose scientific progress. Some people feel it has a lot to teach about the human condition. What's the beef?Maybe there is a more appropriate thread to take this discussion?

Thanks for that Taz. It sort of mellows all those angry avatars you've chosen. Ya softie

I meant what I said about intending to lurk here mostly. I came back because I wanted info to help me with a creationist debate. But then I saw comments that I wanted to respond to, and people wanted to respond to those . . . it just happens, y'know? I mean really. Percy asks how we can get creationists to stop repeating the same things over and over, and what does he do when he's talking with me? I'll have to try some of his debunking ideas on him.I also had no intention of coming back and losing more debates and wasting hours of my time in useless rebuttals. I think I've got a better idea of different perspectives I can take on things now.Maybe what I'm really guilty of is last word-ism. Someone says something that may be OT but I am still tempted to respond to it. Atheism isn't exactly OT here, but perhaps we can pull the discussion back to Christmas. I hope yours is peaceful and merry

Pleased to meet you, like the moniker. You're not based at Leicester Uni by any chance are you? Another member here, Dr. Adequate, used to teach there I believe.I don't have any argument with anything you've said. Maybe the question about the Christmas carols is what kind of sentiment is behind them. A Christian sings them and presumably believes them, they have a special relevance. A non-Christian who sings them is, I guess, joining in and just having some fun. I've been comparing this in my mind with the Diwali celebrations on Melton Road every year. Did you know they are the biggest outside of India? Anyone can come celebrate, though of couse it's usually mostly Hindus and Siekhs who are interested.If you wanted to lend me "The God Delusion" then fair enough, I'd read it. I'd be sticking post-it notes for myself on the pages, saying how angry this stuff makes me and how spiritually bankrupt such a position is. I'd probably feel I was wasting my time with such material. But at least I'd be more educated about what I was saying next time I declared how much I hate his ideas

How would you define spirituality, Crashfrog? Can there be any in one's world where presumably empiricism is the one way to the truth? Or am I misrepresenting you? I'm genuinely interested.When I mentioned Buddhism, I was talking about it broadly. I'm aware that some Buddhists are theists. I was just wondering how things like the search for enlightenment fit into your world view, which really refers back to my question above.

LOL good point.