Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

Hi LindaLou, Hey me too! I suppose it's because I live in Leicester as well.
I too feel a little queasy when asked to sing hymns, but if an atheist wants to do so, why is it hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for an atheist to gaze in wonderment at the ceiling of the sistene chapel? Christian culture permeates the arts to an extent that any attempt to disengage robs us of our culture. Many idioms in daily use are bible quotes and without an extensive bible study lesson, how would we atheists know which to avoid? Why would we want to?
I have many songs in my music collection that mention god or religion, and I see no reason why I should stop listening to Marvin Gaye (for instance) just because I find his ideas about Jesus unpalatable. I don't really see why joining in with the singing makes a difference. This kind of thinking plays into the attitude of many theists, that atheists are somehow impoverished by our beliefs, a notion I reject.
If you were to pick up a copy of "The God Delusion" (I'll lend you mine if you like) you would see that Dawkins does address this topic, in similar terms to those I've rehashed for you above, only more eloquently I fancy.
Personally, I love Christmas, and I'm always irritated when the true meaning of Christmas (presents, tinsel, over-eating, etc.) is spoilt by people dragging Jesus into it.
PS - The word "spirituality" is a bete noir of mine; I don't think that it really means anything. If you want to discuss this in another thread, I'd be delighted to join you.

---

Mutate and Survive

LindaLou,
No I don't have any connection to Leicester Uni, other than living nearby and hunting wild mushrooms near their grounds occasionally.
If you want to borrow the book, give me an e-mail, my address is in profile.
For some reason I am reminded of the well known quote from Douglas Adams;
"Isn't it enough see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi RiverRat,
I can't help but think that your implied comparison between scientific tentativity and agnosticism is unfair. Scientists always leave an element of doubt in their explanations of natural phenomena, but that doubt is often very slight. Agnosticism implies a much greater degree of doubt and ambivalence than exists around well established theories like evolution or gravity.
Dawkins' position is not "There is, without doubt, no God", but rather "There is almost certainly no God". A perfectly sensible opinion I'd say, and hardly an unreasonable one, even if you happen to disagree.
Would you protest so much if a scientist professed a belief in God?

---

Mutate and Survive

Firstly, that is Dawkins' stance. It is part of a chapter title from God Delusion.
Secondly, here is the Wiktionary definition of atheist;

quote:

---

atheism (plural atheisms)

​

1. Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods.
2. Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

---

I think Dawkins' (and my own) position is definition one (strongly) and a near certainty of definition two. He argues that whilst we cannot absolutely prove that God does not exist, it is nonetheless almost certain that he does not exist; it's a racing certainty. You call this a belief, and you are quite right. Just because someone holds a belief, doesn't mean that they should have eliminated all doubt. As you point out, that would be bad. But you are still willing to entertain the possibility that you are wrong aren't you?
Merry Christmas.

---

Mutate and Survive

In my experience, those things are most often used by;
a: neo-pagans
b: people with self-created, pick and choose, magpie religions, usually espousing a little bit of paganism, a little eastern mysticism, a bit of Christianity, etc.
c: folks who claim to "believe in something", without actually being very sure about what that might be.
d: spiritualist Christians.
I think you'll find that most atheists have little time for such things. Um...OK.
You are kidding, right?

---

Mutate and Survive

Then you're about as sure of your beliefs as Dawkins is of his, i.e. you commit to a belief, but you're still willing to concede that you might be wrong, pending relevant evidence.
If this level of doubt makes Dawkins an agnostic, rather than an atheist, then you must be an agnostic as well, no?

---

Mutate and Survive

Sorry for the delay in relpy, but; Amen to that sentiment. I agree that this attitude is more sensible and I wish that more people were willing to embrace it. Kudos to you. My only beef is that whilst you describe yourself as "technically" agnostic, you seem to be a theist in practical terms.
Your definition of agnosticism may be logical, but it simply encompasses too many people, with wildly differing views, for it to be a useful term when employed this way. You, me, Richard Dawkins, the Archbishop of Canterbury, we are all agnostics, if we use your definition. In actual fact, we have very different ideas.
To lump millions of theists, deists and atheists in with the agnostics implies that only a fundamentalist, who will brook no doubt about his beliefs whatever, could be described as a theist. It implies that only an arrogant arse, who thought that he could completely prove the non-existence of god, could be described as an atheist. Your logic leaves us with no practical way to describe those of us who dwell in the more rational middle ground, and empowers uncompromising fundamentalist loons on both sides of the argument.
"Atheist" is simply the best way of describing Dawkins' (and my own) beliefs, in a single word. It instantly gives people the right general idea about where we stand on the issue. If pressed, I will gladly admit that I cannot absolutely know if I am right or not, but this is a nicety that can't be expressed in a single word. For reasons of linguistic economy and clarity, I think that Dawkins' use of the term is entirely reasonable. If by this you mean that living a moral life is more important than your reasons for doing so, then you will get no argument from me.

---

Mutate and Survive

If I may, In Dawkins' case, I suppose it is because he enjoys the tradition of singing special songs at a specific time of year. The tradition of reserving carols for Christmas is an enjoyable one. It makes the songs special, even when stripped of their religious meaning, simply by virtue of their only being sung during Christmas festivities. This has no wholly secular equivalent that I can think of. It is harmless fun, unless your meme argument holds... Poetically, if historically is not enough.
I think that your point about memes is well made, and the strongest argument that you present here. I cannot deny that, if there is any validity to the idea of memes at all, then carols possess an unpalatable dollop of the "Christianity" meme.
The trouble is that, by this logic, a great swathe of Western art and culture must also be seen as infected. If your argument is that any atheist worried about spreading the Christian meme should avoid anything tainted by it, then we would loose so much. The poetry of William Blake would be off limits, as would the plays of Shakespeare. The music of artists as diverse as Handel and Stevie Wonder would be regarded as carrying a dangerous contaminant; best to bin them. The work of Michaelangelo is right out of the question.
This is obviously too high a price to pay.
I also think that it is possible to neuter the religion meme encountered in the carols, by appreciating the songs for their aesthetic beauty alone, thus robbing the religious element of some of its former relevance. If I sing "for Jesus Christ, our saviour, was born on Christmas day" without meaning a word of it, am I promoting the meme? Or am I trivialising it to the point where it no longer has any power. You could compare the process to an inoculation, with a small dose of the religion meme providing an opportunity for us to understand it for what it really is and develop an immunity.
If there really is such a thing as a religion meme, then we cannot hope to avoid them, nor should we. We can only seek to diminish their power. Anyway, I think that the power of memes in this case can be overstated. No-one with as much as half a brain would be converted simply by hearing a rousing chorus of "The Wassail Song". He is only empowering religion if he is singing the carols in church, or another explicitly religious setting. If, by contrast, he is seeking to break the monopoly on religion's "best bits", then he is weakening religion, by undermining its unique selling points. He is proving that an atheist need not be culturally impoverished.
Merry Christmas!

---

Mutate and Survive

Arrgh! You're just chasing your own tail, pursuing a circular argument. In message 131, you said; But you won't allow Dawkins to have any beliefs because of your misunderstanding of scientific tentativity. To suggest that scientists should have no beliefs is absurd. Should Dawkins be agnostic about gravity or electro-magnetism? You seem to be arguing that tentativity=agnosticism, and that is just nonsense.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Silent H,
You say; Kids aren't going to become theists unless they are actively encouraged in that direction. A song isn't going to do it. As for believers, I don't much care what other people think is going on in my head. I don't really sing carols in public, and certainly not in church, so it's a moot point. I think it is enough to avoid singing carols in an overtly religious setting, such as a church.
The problem with believers tempering their faith with reason, is that it still leaves the central plank of unreason intact, namely faith without evidence. This is Dawkins main bugbear, because this is where moderates hold common cause with extremists. This is what Dawkins believes to be the most dangerous idea in religion, and I agree. Faith-based reasoning is useless at best, and dangerous at worst. No matter how rational you are, if you believe in God, you are promoting this dangerous idea, in a direct way, which cannot be compared to carol singing. I would say yes, after all, some of those nasty Bible stories are hardly culturally uplifting, but with the faith-based reasoning thing still intact, even the most benign religion is promoting unreason, a bad business, whilst we are in the midst of a climate disaster that makes public understanding of science an urgent necessity. I would level the same accusation at new age tomfoolery such as homoeopathy and crystal healing. Faith-based reasoning has had its day, and whilst it may once have served a purpose, it has now become a dangerous hindrance.
If all this still seems hypocritical to you, then I probably can't say much more to persuade you, except that if if I must be a hypocrite in order to enjoy the work of William Blake, then I would prefer to be a hypocrite, than lose out on all that beauty.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi H, Well no, because the kid in your example didn't invent Christianity for himself. Someone lead him toward it, just not necessarily his parents. It was presumably a church, proselytiser or book, etc. I never said that kids won't become theists if their parents are not theists, rather that someone has to encourage a child in that direction before he will embrace theism. They won't come up with it independently. That's what we are discussing though. Remember, I'm talking about engaging in carol singing on it's own, divorced from other religious baggage, not in a church setting. As I point out above. H, I never said it was. The forces that make religious people (and others) turn to extremism are usually secular, ie. the social situation in which they live, and the associated politics. My argument is that it is hard to see how a person could kill in the name of his god, if he does not indulge in the faith-based reasoning that allows him to believe in that god in the first place. Faith is the prerequisite for religious extremism. When a terrorist blows himself up in the name of Allah, the catalyst may have been secular, but the act is committed in the name of religion. We have to take them at their word.
You mention social Darwinism, but those idiots didn't act in the name of atheism. It may have influenced their thinking, but it was not essential for social Darwinist thinking, as evidenced by the appalling social Darwinism involved in the Hindu caste system.
You also mention cherry-picking, but that only really matters if you are going to claim that your source is a "holy" book, and you then go to pick and choose from it, deciding which bit is really holy, and which is to be ignored. Both moderates and extremists are equally guilty of cherry picking. Atheists cherry pick too, but since we make no special claims about the source material, we are as free to pick and choose from the holy books as we are to cherry pick from secular philosophy, or Alice in Wonderland for that matter. It's not my intent to criticise the use of faith in every judgement, just objective ones. The point you make about faith in moral reasoning is correct, but you miss the point. Morals are subjective. They do not exist outside of our minds.
God, real or not, is objective. He either exists or he doesn't. "Does god exist?" is an objective question. Faith is fine in subjective matters, such as morals or aesthetics, since there could be no evidence. The problem starts when people base objective beliefs on faith alone, when evidence would serve then better. Like it or not, the existence of god is an objective claim. Yeah sure, I am making the subjective judgement, that if we were to maim the Earth's environment, it would be a bad thing. That is a subjective judgement, if not a very controversial one. If we accept this subjective judgement as true, then we must turn to asking what to do about it.
"Is human activity causing climate change" is an objective question.
If people accept the evidence, and then say that we should do nothing, then they are entitled to their opinion. What concerns me is that people do not engage with the evidence and then council inaction. The evidence that human activity is driving climate change is very strong. My worry is that people are using faith to answer the question, instead of evidence.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi H, sorry for delay in reply, but here goes... That is true, but we were discussing Christmas carols, which by their nature are tied to a specific theology. I'm not worried about kids creating personal superstitious systems, because without outside reinforcement, the internal inconsistencies in such systems would cause them to fall apart when the kid reaches adulthood (unless the poor mite was completely loopy). Besides, a child could create a personal superstition around anything, from God, to Barney the purple dinosaur. To prevent this, you would have to keep the child free from all outside influence, clearly not an option. True again, but I'm not arguing that the meme is not being passed on, but rather, that the spread through art is unavoidable without ditching most of human culture. Spreading the meme is a necessary evil if we are unwilling to do this. Besides, there is an underlying assumption here, that memes hold power over us. I'm not convinced that this is true. I see the concept of memes as being a descriptive device, of dubious objective reality. If memes are real, we must simply be strong enough to resist their influence, where necessary.
An inspiring hymn might be a causal factor in religious conversions, but it can never be the whole story. Fair enough, but I'm not entirely sure that Dawkins has ever said the faith based reason turns moderates into extremists either. I took a look at the appropriate chapter of "The God Delusion", and I couldn't find any such claim. He says that faith is a driving force behind the unpleasantness of extremists, and that moderates promote faith, thus bolstering those extremists, but as far as I can tell, he is silent on what moves moderates to extremism. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me a quote. And I would criticise anyone who did so. It is important to note that faith is not exclusive to religion. You mention nationalism, and I agree that this is an excellent example of a dangerous faith-based idea. I oppose it every bit as much as I do religion. Communism is another useful example, especially with regards to the "inevitability of Marxism". Pure faith, and once again, dangerous rubbish.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Rat, Well fine, I apologise if I was misrepresenting your position, but it still seems as though, whilst you are happy enough for people to have beliefs, you seem to desire to tell them what labels they should use to describe those beliefs. I have already said why I think that Dawkins' self-application of the term "atheist" is a reasonable and useful way to describe his beliefs. If you recall, I have already proved to you that Dawkins is not set in stone, he is simply convinced enough to take a position on the subject. He does not say that he is 100% guaranteed correct. In my opinion, any atheist who believes that they possess absolute proof of god's non-existence is a berk. Clear to you perhaps, but without being able to prove that god even exists, I am at a loss to explain how you might be able to know how he works. It pretty much does rat. If you want to claim that god is subjective (i.e. only existing in the imagination) then you'll find no argument here. If you want to claim any objective (i.e. existing independently of the imagination) existence for god, then you need to point out the evidence. Seems fair to me. Not a fair comparison. The idea of ET life is consistent with what we observe here on Earth, thus it is a plausible hypothesis. We have plenty of evidence that life can exist on a suitable planet (in this case, the Earth). It is not a big stretch to imagine that it happened more than once. God is not consistent with observed evidence. There is no evidential precedent for God. Thus, the God hypothesis is inherently less convincing.
Anyway, only a person stupid enough to believe that they have absolute knowledge that there is no god, should then go on to believe that there absolutely are no alien life forms, but as I have said, those people are berks.

---

Mutate and Survive

You seem to be having a little trouble with objectivity/subjectivity. Yes, that's because they are objective; they exist whether we believe in them or not. It would be strange to have believed in neutrinos before any evidence of their existence was found. Like it or not, if you want to say that god is real then you are saying that he is an objective reality. If he is subjective, then he is just a figment. People have always believed that the sun is a living being or that it is vital to sacrifice animals to one's ancestors; do you think that makes it more true?

---

Mutate and Survive

Huh? Are you implying that we can know nothing? What are you talking about? I agree with the highlighted section. That makes your personal experience of what you interpret as god a subjective one, yes. God himself remains objective. Forgive me, but the point you made was to imply that the antiquity of a belief is evidence of its correctness. It is not. Similarly, the all-pervasive nature of human curiosity is proof of nothing more than our having a brain that likes to spot patterns and solve problems, that's all.
We seem to have wandered off topic. To drag us back on course, are you any more ready to accept that Dawkins' description of himself as an atheist is compatible with his being a scientist, and his willingness to admit that he might be wrong?

---

Mutate and Survive