Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

Not any more than being a "non-practicing Jew." Dawkins grew up in a Christian society so naturally that stuff inflects the culture he prefers.And I don't see for a second that you have to follow the words of Christ in order to enjoy the holidays. Heck Christianity ripped off the whole holiday from the pagans, anyway. As a time for getting together with friends and family, it has the same deep meaning for everyone who participates, I think. I don't see that the religious connotations add any "deep meaning." Most people, by far, don't find much deep meaning in religion. It just doesn't have the power to offer that kind of meaning.

"Uh-huh, here comes that high C I can never hit." Them, maybe? Pick up his book. Get them from the horse's mouth. Dawkins is, by far, the most singularly misrepresented figure in modern science.

I never said that he was, nor has he.But he's a scientist. Surely that's indisputable. As for "promoting atheism", I don't know what that's supposed to mean or why it "isn't allowed" for a scientist to do that. Atheism is based on science.When he disputes the historic veracity of religious claims, he's being a historian. When he disputes the sociological claims of religion ("it makes people better", etc) he's being a sociologist, and that's a form of science. When he disputes creationism and relays the scientific support for evolution - much of which he's directly researched himself - he's definitely acting as a scientist.To the extent that atheism is the natural conclusion of science - and it is, because the facile idea that the "supernatural is beyond the reach of science" is clearly false - I don't see why promoting it is inconsistent with being a scientist.

I mean precisely what it says, I guess. Dawkins is a scientist, and more than any other scientist, his views and arguments are misrepresented. Absolutely. So? At that point, it would be whatever science delivered evidence of that would be based on science.But that's in your imaginary world. In the real world, the evidence science delivers confirms atheism. Hence, atheism is based on science. Nothing, it's just an example of the kinds of things he does as a scientist. From science, of course. The evidence of science naturally leads to atheism.Wherever did you get the idea otherwise? Sure, but God really isn't one of those claims. The God claim does include testable claims, they've been tested, and thus the God claim has been rejected because it's testable consequences lead to the opposite conclusion.You know, the way anything can be disconfirmed. Of course not, but reasonable people surely can see that there's enough evidence to take it further; science contradicts the existence of God. How could it not? Gosh, if it didn't, why would science be such a target for theists? Why would so many scientists be atheists?It's incoherent to act like there's no connection. How many people whose beliefs are determined by evidence have to arrive at a conclusion of atheism before you stop ignoring that? But it obviously does. The scientific evidence contradicts theism. How can it not? Nonsense, no more than anybody else who uses scientific evidence to disprove something. It's not philosophy, it's science. (Of course, I know that doesn't stop philosophers from trying to appropriate the work of others.)

Well, in the sense that Neil DeGrasse Tyson isn't being an astrophysicist when he writes his popular books about astrophysics - he's being a book writer, and not doing research according to the scientific method - I agree with you.But when Tyson goes to sleep, he's no less a scientist than he is when he's in the lab, even if he's doing something other than science. And the same is true of Dawkins. Tyson is a member of the scientific community - he's "in science" to use the terminology I used before - even if he's brushing his teeth and not doing science, and the same is true of Dawkins.Dawkins is no less a part of science for writing a book about atheism, even if the book itself doesn't constitute a scientific publication.

Does he, anywhere?See what I mean about how often he's misrepresented? Well, wait. Just now you said: And now you're saying that it is vice versa. You're a little confused on what's the conclusion of what, here.

I guess, and I can't say that's not true, but I don't really see the relevance to what I was talking about.Probably atheism isn't on-topic here. It originally started with a book recommendation, after all. Maybe we should leave it at that?

Most specifically I'm thinking of his arguments in The God Delusion. But The Selfish Gene gets misrepresented pretty bad, too. Like Andrea Dworkin I think Dawkins has actually said maybe less than half of the statements and arguments ascribed to him, particularly by his opponents.Anyway we're pretty far off-topic. We should probably drop it.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Yeah, it's a real panty-peeler for my wife, that's for sure.Or something.

Well, except that it is. It's off-topic, though. I could care less. We're not going to endear them to us by obfuscating or outright fabricating the scientific consensus. Science contradicts their beliefs, that's really all there is to that. There's no way to soft-pedal the conflict of science and religion. It's there; it exists. Religion makes testable claims, and science shows those claims don't hold up to scrutiny.Fundamentalists should be endeared to science the same way everybody else is - when they, personally, realize that they would prefer accurate truths supported by evidence over comforting lies. Nobody's served when someone exchanges one unexamined dogma for another.

With what organs?Don't you think it's just a little bit incumbent on you to provide some evidence of human beings supposedly transcending physical reality, or whatever? And some explanation as to why those people who can claim to do so can never manage to do it in a controlled test environment? Oh, but say, the implication that people who don't believe in Big Sky Daddy can't sing a Christmas carol without being a hypocrite, that's not supposed to be insulting?I'm sorry that you feel Dawkins is somehow attacking your spirituality by his very existence, or by the fact that he thinks it's ridiculous that religious craziness is privileged over other kinds of insanity. But compared to the thoughtlessness that atheists are regularly subjected to from theists, I lack sympathy. Every time a theists idly wonders aloud "huh, shouldn't all atheists be amoral serial killers?" it boggles my mind. Would anybody say such bigoted crap about black people or gay people, these days? It's like atheists are the last minority it's completely ok to shit all over. At least the racists have the sense to be ashamed of their racism, and try to hide it. But the religious don't even try to hide their contempt for people who don't share their delusion.Sorry, that's a bit of a rant after I noted how off-topic this all is. Or maybe it's not.

What belief? I don't know anybody who's promoting that position - particularly not Dawkins.But I guess I don't know what you mean by "spirituality." Ghosts? Goblins? Psychic powers? It seems like you can have plenty of spirituality in your life without resorting to belief in magic powers and supernatural beings. What about it? Which Buddhism, precisely? What beef?

Self-knowledge. Of course, abundantly. Not only is empiricism a path to spiritual truths, it's the only path. Empiricism is just finding something out, examining reality, instead of just making up the answer with your imagination. How can just making things up lead to any kind of truth, spiritual or otherwise? Well, it depends what you mean by "enlightenment." Godliness and the transcendence of physical reality, the power to break physical law and act like Neo in the Matrix? That's clearly nonsense. Don't you ever watch those kung-fu guys who can knock down all their disciples with just the power of their mind with techniques that it takes decades to master the defense against (supposedly) and then they try it against a skeptic, and nothing happens?And the kung-fu master is all like "oh, well, it doesn't work if you have your toes crossed." What?On the other hand, do I think meditation can lead to knowledge about the self? Of course. Is it enlightening? Absolutely.Is it magic? Nonsense.