Asked by a British member of Parliament if he is one of those atheists who wants to get rid of Christian symbols especially during the Christmas season, atheist Richard Dawkins replied that he is not. Dawkins said that he himself sings Christmas carols and that he considers himself a "cultural Christian." Just as many Jews regard themselves as Jewish, defend Jewish interests and cherish Jewish culture while not participating in Jewish religious rituals, Dawkins says that he respects the fact that the history and traditions of the West are shaped by Christianity. Dawkins says he's not one of those who wants to purge the West of its Christian traditions. The main threat to Christian symbols, Dawkins argues, does not come from atheists like him but rather from Muslims and members of other faiths.

Now this is quite remarkable. In The God Delusion, Dawkins portrayed the Christian God as a wicked, avaricious, capricious, genocidal maniac. Dawkins even blasted Jesus for such offenses as speaking harshly to his mother. Yet if the Jewish and Christian God was such a monster, what sense does it make for Dawkins to embrace the cultural influence of that deity? It would be like someone saying, "Hitler was a murderous maniac, but I am a cultural Nazi. No, I don't embrace the specifics of Nazi doctrine, but I appreciate what fascism has done to shape German culture. Let's give up the specifics of the Hitler program, but let's also keep Nazi culture along with the fuhrer's imagery on our coins and monuments."

Dawkins is not an unintelligent man, so what's going on here? One possibility is that Dawkins now recognizes that today's atheists who want to get rid of Christian symbols are just as intolerant as Christians who in the pst sought to deny atheists a voice in the public arena. So Dawkins' statement can be read as a critique of intolerance and political correctness.

A second possibility is that Dawkins now sees the Muslim threat to the West--and especially European culture--as more serious than the prospect of a second Christian Inquisition, so he has decided to ally with the Christians against the Islamic radicals. Other atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are now admitting that atheist attempts to equate Islamic extremism with Christianity are bogus. The real threat doesn't come from Presbyterianism or Anglicanism but from a radical Islam that wants to obliterate Western civilization.

I suspect that these two factors may have played a role, but the main reason for Dawkins' remarkable self-identification as a cultural Christian is that he has slowly come to realize that even the values that he cherishes--values such as individual dignity, science as an autonomous enterprise, the equal dignity of women, the abolition of slavery, and compassion as a social virtue--came into the West because of Christianity. I have been hammering this point in my debates with leading atheists, and it's possible that one of the Oxford historians came up to Dawkins and said, to his horror, "You know, Richard, that D'Souza chap has a point."

Okay, so let's give this biologist credit for learning a little history. Still, the deeper question remains. If the God of the Old and New Testaments is such a bad character, how come his cultural influence is so positive? Absent a good answer to this question, we must reconsider the premise: perhaps the God of the Old and New Testaments is not the evil figure portrayed in atheist propaganda. On the contrary, perhaps all our Western notions of good and bad derive from no source other than this Christian God. This certainly was Nietzsche's view, and he knew a lot more about the subject than Richard Dawkins. Wouldn't it be interesting if Dawkins continues his intellectual growth and reverses his old misunderstandings? Then he can reissue his book: Overcoming My Delusions: Confessions of a Cultural Christian.

Atheists Disagree on Cultural Christianity

Dawkins Hawking "Atheists for Jesus" T-Shirts

If seeing Richard Dawkins merrily caroling "Away in a Manger" around his Christmas tree wouldn’t surprise you, how about coming across him at the beach wearing his "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirt?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

While Richard Dawkins has nothing but venom in The God Delusion for the God of the Old Testament, he ’s still got a soft spot for Jesus of the New Testament. For Dawkins, Jesus "was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time," so that "It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called ‘Atheists for Jesus’…" In this revealing article, Dawkins asserts that Jesus was

a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.

In fact, Jesus was so "nice," that he can’t help feeling that, underneath it all, he must really be…well…a lot like Richard Dawkins.

I think a reborn Jesus would wear the T-shirt ["Atheists for Jesus"]. It has become a commonplace that, were he to return today, he would be appalled at what is being done in his name, by Christians ranging from the Catholic Church to the fundamentalist Religious Right. Less obviously but still plausibly, in the light of modern scientific knowledge I think he would see through supernaturalist obscurantism. But of course, modesty would compel him to turn his T-shirt around: Jesus for Atheists.

So, much like he wants to extract Christmas carols and trees from the worship of God-made-man, Richard Dawkins would like to extract super-niceness from Jesus without all that bothersome divinity stuff. One wonders in both cases: How much can Dawkins really understand about Christianity? If he knows so little as to make such suggestions, then he surely doesn’t know enough to reject it. Christian ethics, with all its notions of self-sacrifice (the niceness, as he calls it), is rooted in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But for the believer, it only makes sense to sacrifice the self, if the self will (like Christ himself) rise again.

Benjamin Wiker

Modernity’s first great atheist, Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) was something of a cultural Christian too. While continually mocking Christianity out of one side of his mouth, with the other he was singing its praises. Why?

For Machiavelli, the most important thing was power, the political power of the prince. Religion is false, but religion is good for the prince. Rulers need to control the masses. The masses, Machiavelli argued, are generally stupid but also unruly. No matter how powerful the ruler is, he can’t control everyone all the time. He needs to control his subjects completely, yet complete control—of body and mind—would only be possible if one is a god. The next best thing, Machiavelli reasoned, is if the ruler pretends that he is an especial friend of God. That way the prince can claim that God is watching all the time even while he, the prince, is asleep or on campaign.

There we have it. Cultural Christianity as outlined by Machiavelli, one of the most insidious knaves ever to draw breath. But is Dawkins a Machiavellian? Well, maybe he is. Perhaps Dawkins thinks Christianity is more useful in inculcating "super-niceness" than mere atheism, at least for the stupid "faith-heads" who are incapable of real thinking (as he so nastily calls the bulk Christians in The God Delusion). So, a bit like the duplicitous Machiavelli going to Mass, Dawkins will proudly wear his "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirt at the beach.

Benjamin Wiker

Unlike modernity’s first great atheist, Machiavelli, the last great atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche wanted Christianity to be destroyed—not only as an active religion, but every last cultural vestige.

For Nietzsche, Christianity was a religion of slaves, of weaklings, of envy and spite against the strong. Nietzsche would not wear an "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirt like Richard Dawkins because the very notion of "super niceness" would fill him with rage. Great men aren’t nice, and the only thing that makes a godless existence bearable is the expression of greatness.

The true ethical system, according to Nietzsche, is one based on the power of the strong. That is an ethics based on nature, for in nature it is the strong lion who rules the pride by his victory over the weaker lions. And the first thing he does after his victory, is eat all the cubs of the previous lion king.

Nietzsche preached this kind of magnificent cruelty against the Christian notion of self-sacrifice and love. The will-to-power makes men great; self-sacrifice is for small people, the people that are fit only to be slaves of the great.

Obviously, Nietzsche’s worship of power and greatness would make for a very different kind of culture, one where cruelty is the highest virtue. "We should reconsider cruelty and open our eyes," said Nietzsche. "Almost everything we call ‘higher culture’ is based on the spiritualization of cruelty, on its becoming more profound: this is my proposition." Nietzsche pitted this "higher culture" against Christian culture.

Nietzsche was an atheist. Dawkins is an atheist. Nietzsche preached ruthless power. Dawkins preaches super-niceness. What makes Dawkins think he can have his atheist cake, and not get eaten by the likes of Nietzsche?

Benjamin Wiker

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.