In this segment, Richard Dawkins, the famed evolutionary biologists, zoologists and author, is apparently endorsing the culture associated with Christianity in the face of rising Muslim populations around the world. The author of The God Delusion has taken a hard line approach to insisting that gods are essentially made up. But could this hard line actually be softening as he advocates for the cultural aspects of Christianity? Scott,
can you elaborate more on this article? What's Dawkins talking about? Sure? Sure, So you know we've all heard of Richard Dawkins. He's well known in addition to the scientific credentials you mentioned, but he's a well known in the atheist community. In fact, he's maybe the most famous atheist. If not the most famous, then he's definitely up there. And so he's
well known for his criticism of religion. So he was on British talk radio recently where he was talking about his religious experiences and so on, and although he was happy about the decline of Christianity, he still was kind of, like he said, there was still a soft spot for it, and has already called himself a cultural Christian. But then he specifically said he started disparaging Islam uh in in exchange for these you know, puffing up Christianity, he
called, he said that Christianity was quote unquote fundamentally decent when compared to Islam. And that's and you know, that's kind of a double standard. He's he's it seems like what's good for the goose is not good for the gander with mister Dawkins here, he's condemning things like or he's downplaying and dismissing celebrations like Ramadan, while you know, while holding up how precious and celebrated Christmas
is and things like that. And his comments have not only just kind of tipped his hand a little bit about what his real approaches, but he's also it's it's kind of fanning the flames of anti Islam sentiments in Europe and especially in the in the current political climate. His failure to then the same level of nuance and understanding to all these different religions I think puts his credibility in question, and his credibility as a critic of religious extremism and of intolerance.
The article, by the way, was written by hem and Meta at The Friendly Atheist on April second, twenty twenty four, The Wonderful Hemet Meta great material. I want to unpack this idea that Christianity is fundamentally decent, or at least more fundamentally decent. And I think that that's something I want to get back to later because I can't just gloss over it and ignore that for the time being. But I do want to first pay attention to this idea
that maybe Dawkins has a point. I don't know. Are we, as Westerners, especially us as Americans, more inclined to identify with Christianity or is it the case that we as skeptics, or excuse me and let me backtrack, are we more inclined to identify or be or have more in common with Christianity than we do with Islam that's a piece. Or is it the fact that the case that as skeptics we don't agree or conform in any way to either of them? Does Does Dawkins deserve a little bit of credit here,
Scott? What do you think? Well? I think that you know, you hear people talk about how you take credit for your successes and you blame others for your failures, right, And I think we're kind of seeing a little bit of that here you mentioned you know, what are we used to? I can speak for myself. I was raised in a Christian family. I did have the opportunity to live in a community predominantly Muslim community, so I have a little bit of experience from from a couple of different directions.
But but yeah, I mean it's it's when you're a child, when you're growing up, I mean you get used to things, you develop positive associations with many things, and like so many of us, you know, I remember going to church. I remember being with my family. I remember my parents pitching that as a positive thing that. You know, if you want to be if you want to grow up to be good, you need to go to church. You have you know, you have to follow these rules.
You have to, you know, be this kind of person if you want to be happy. And like anybody else, I want to satisfy my uh you know, I want my parents to be proud of me. I want my parents to be happy. And so if is he justified or is he I mean I can understand where he's coming from, but I think the
emphasis should be more on the skepticism. I think that just much of what Richard Dawkins talk talks about is how we we can so easily fall accept things that are that make us feel good about the warm, fuzzy feeling emotional responses, and and he's written much about how we should be careful of that because
that can be misleading. We know our emotions can lead us down down these wrong paths, and so it seems I don't know, it seems like like it's a disconnect in his mind, but you know, it's a normal human disconnect. It's it's we all do it to some extent. And I don't think he's necessarily a bad I do think he's a bad person for many other
reasons, but for this in particular. You know, I can't blame him for having positive memories of his childhood, sure, but I think he needs to take that extra step and make sure that the skepticism is the last word in what he says. Yeah. Right, it's easy to get lost in
our history that we couldn't help. Right. We're brought up in these families and these customs and cultures that we really are powerless to change, and so we're kind of stuck with them until we, you know, make these small baby steps, like, you know, perhaps we're doing just by having this conversation Eli, just because our language and our phrases in English or in Western society are riddled with Christian influence, does that make us culturally Christian. I
kind of understand what he's saying. I get what he's trying to describe. I don't know if culturally Christian is the best way to describe it. I did it first, and then I kind of changed my stance on a little bit. I can relate a lot to what he's saying. Earlier today, like somebody messaged me and asked me about like my thoughts on what happens when you die, and I summarized it by saying, basically, like the body that I use while I was alive becomes energy for other living things. Basically.
Then I went and looked at it later and I didn't say while I was alive. I said while I was here, Like I don't believe in a there. I don't think that there is one, so there by so for me to say here is a product of the Christianity that I was raised in. And I think the sort of the language and the imagery and the
ideas that are just so saturated in society. I think it's It was just I didn't think about it while I was typing it, and I just went back and read it later, and I was like, that's so weird, and especially like thinking, like knowing that we were going to be recorded, like doing this article today, and I was like, this is so strange that this is happening to me. To call it culturally Christian again, and I don't know what's the best way to describe it, but I absolutely relate
to having the mechanisms or the the isms, you could say, the Christianisms kind of ingrained into just your habits. I say things like oh my God and thank God. Sure, you know, stuff like that. Yeah, well that's a that's a good a good segue, because I want to kind of talk about some of the things that we pick up and we keep with us. You know, Dawkins talks about celebrating, you know, Christian holidays
and things like that. You know, does do those Christians that that are so inclined to celebrate Christmas, for example, does that actually make them a little bit pagan or ancient Roman because that's where all of those customs were stolen from. It's just a fun mental gymnastics to play, because you know, nothing is fundamentally Christian, even Islam takes its roots from Judaism, and so it's it's nothing really is owned by any one sect of the Abrahamic religion.
And that's where I kind of want to turn to infidel on because you know, I mentioned earlier that I wanted to get back to this idea that Dawkins says that when you compare Christianity with Islam, that Christianity is the fundamentally decent religion, or maybe more decent religion. Infidel I know, just by knowing you that you cannot possibly agree that Christianity is more decent. You know, what is it that Dawkins is getting wrong? And should we have a preference
between Mosaic law or Sharia law for example? I mean, what should we be more concerned with. Well, it's a little funny when you bring up Christmas and how some Christians you know, to make them a little bit pagan if they celebrate Christmas. I was raised in a Christian sect that didn't celebrate
Christmas. It was too pagan for us. So I think that when it comes down to fundamentally decent, I think that Dawkins is looking at a far more sanitized view of Christianity than I say most of us here in the United States are first looking at as well what I look and of course, once again goes back to personal experience. You know, I think that Dawkins has allowed himself to be lulled to sleep by church bells and forgotten that, you
know, the doctrine that stands behind it. Whether it's the cathedrals he's talking about, are the places that I went to growing up. This fundamentally decent Christianity has been used to establish a patriarchy, to give an excuse for people
to abuse and beat their children, subjugate their their wives and women. You know, LGBTQ is an abomination according to them, all these others, and all these other people that I don't think it's going to make a lot of difference to them in history, whether it was Sharia law or mosaic law. Right now. For me, I'm concerned about mosaic law because it's the one
that's at my front door right now. And so I understand that if we had a fundamental change of people saying, hey, let's put Sharia law in the play, I'd be like we have a problem here, But last I checked, we had Moses, Mikey Johnson and our Speaker of the House and not somebody who's trying to push Sharia law. So with that in mind, yeah, okay, I think both of them are just about equally terrible. I think that up until the last fifty years or so, Christianity have been
moving towards a more liberalized view. We've seen something a lot different than that in the last decade to twenty years. So right now, for me, yes, it's definitely mosaic law my number one concern, and I see nothing fundamentally decent about what we're talking about here, right and we know just based on the tenets of Christian and ju Hebrew law that you know, some major
atrocities have taken place that their followers are completely fine with. And we know that Christianity at its core is going to be something that is damaging to society. We've got this long period called the Middle Ages where people were burned at the stake for being witches, or for being atheists, for being homosexuals, you name it. You know, this kind of thing, unchecked, really
can destroy a society. And that brings me to the point where I kind of want to turn to Scott and get some clarification because I know that you feel maybe we shouldn't be too hard on people, but we shouldn't be too soft on their religion either, And so I'm kind of wondering where is the dividing line between the rules of a religion and the people carrying out the instructions of said religion. I mean, how do we approach that right right?
And that's a great question. Before I answer that, I want to give kudos to Eli. I thought that was a great story that you shared about your self reflection. I think it's a good reminder that as atheists it's important that we also look in the mirror too, and that we assess ourselves and that we are that we make sure that we're home holding ourselves to the same
standard as well. So thank you for sharing that. But to build on what Jimmy, what you and Infidel were saying about about, you know, the fundamental nature of this religion, I think that's what's one of the things that's most asinine about and about what Dawkins has been saying. I think that's that's the real problem, is he's kind of glossing that over. I mean religions, as fundamentally religions are irrational beliefs. And so that's the problem,
and so much of what Dawkins has written is about specifically that. And I think you're asking specifically about the distinction between the people and the religion. I think that's the problem there. I think that's part of what he's. Part of what he's what is pulling him in that emotional direction is his attachment to people. But I think that he needs to That's why he needs to apply
it fairly. Okay, if he's going to look at the people of one religion, then he has to compare those to the people of the other religion, you know, just like any other you know, division of humanity. We're going to have good people and bad people. We're going to have a mixture, We're going to have people in how many different ways are the Bible interpreted? Right, We're going to have people going all over the place starting
with the same material. And so if you're going to judge based off of the off of what the what the people are doing, then then you know, at least be magnanimous and at least be you know, fair about it. On the flip side of that, we have the religion, and we can't be lifting up a religion because you like the people that are involved in that. I think the religion aspect of it needs to be. That's where we need to be focusing our critique. That's where we need to be criticizing.
That's where Richard Dawkins needs to be remembering his his skepticism. And so the line should be between you know, you hear this kind of the saying in come from many different directions, love the sinner, you know, hate the sin, that kind of thing, Criticize the action or the or the or the the tenets, and respect and love the person. And so I think that we need to if we're going to criticize a religion, then criticize the religion. If you're gonna if you want to talk, if you want
to feel good about the people, then feel good about the people. I think that's the decision there. That's the line that you were looking for. Is where where the rubber meets the road, where the you know, where the theology meets the practicality. I think that's where that this that distinction has to be made. And I would like to see Richard Dawkins, who presents
himself as a skeptic, take that approach as well. Right, And you know you mentioned that you don't have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins for other things that he said, But you know, he's a he's potentially a fine biologist or zoologist, you know, barring some anti gender comments that he's made. I shouldn't say anti gender, but but transgender excuse me, anti transgender comments that he's made. You know, he's not a very good historian either, as we can tell. You know, he has no ide what
he's talking about when it comes to the nature of Christianity. And I'm not even sure that we should even really care or at least Eli, I don't think that you have a high opinion of Dawkins's opinion. Can you expand on that a little bit? Yeah? So, I he of course is very influential. Scott made this point earlier. Yeah, he was extremely influential to me when I was coming into my atheism, and probably to all of us, into many many people, and as well as I've gone on to start
learning about biology. A lot of what I now can remember is I remember hearing him say as well So the thing is that I don't agree with them. I don't think Christianity is fundamentally good in the fundamentalists are the ones that I was hoping we're going to get raptured during the eclipse, because I was really good border like that kind of like being down with But that aside, even that I don't agree with him, I well, and that's the reason.
I well, that's not the reason that I don't care. But it's essentially just that he's not dogmatically significant to atheism, like we don't need Richard Dawkins to, you know, to we don't even to agree with everything Richard Dawkins says. So, yeah, that's that's right. It's not that I don't care. I think that if it weren't for his opinions about like the things he said about transgend or thing like that, I might I probably would
give a little more weight to what he has to say. I'd like maybe, But that doesn't change the fact that I don't think that it's right to begin with. And his opinion about religion is just like his opinion about you know, gender and opinion, and it's irrelevant. Okay, well, you know, getting back to this, idea of cultural Christianity. You know, I want to harken back to something that Infidel said earlier and then give everybody
a chance to wrap up. But if Fidel, you know, you said you're more concerned with mosaic law than you are with Sharia law, because mosaic law is what's on your doorstep. But is it potentially our inclination to align with those mosaic roots through Christianity that keeps Sharia law and Islam from encroaching upon our doorstep? I mean, are we choosing some consciously Christianity over something far worse? I don't think so. I think that we're selling ourselves short if
we accept that, well, Christianity is a lesser of evil. So that's what I'm going to go with. You know, this reminds me of Herci Ali, who had became an atheist and really hates Islam. And I understand very with for very good personal reasons, with knowing her life some of her life experiences. But now she's converted over to Christianity and it's more of a sounds like a political change than an actual spiritual change. And that's what I
see him doing here, and I'm not interested in going that route. I think that as a society, if we have any hope of doing things better than we have in the past, we're going to have to find new ways to do those and I don't think that recycling the hat trick from two thousand years ago is going to do that. Whether it's Judaism, Christianity, are Islam, I think it's time we try something new. And I definitely believe and maybe I'm being too hopeful, but I believe that we can definitely do
better. Absolutely. Scott thirty seconds closing comments befloor Is yours well. I think one of the advantages of ascribing to a philosophy that's not authoritarian gives us the freedom to criticize our so called leaders, right, and so I'm happy for that. I think Richard Dawkins needs to put his money where his mouth is, and I think he needs to if he wants to be a leader
in the skeptic community. I think he needs to be more skeptical and would I would like to, you know, I would like to see him put the focus back on where at least I thought it was once. Maybe that can't happen, Maybe it can. I don't know. Sure, sure, Eli. Mostly just that you know, a thin influential was he was. I don't think that one opinion he has about religion in an interview that he did is worth its own headline. And you know, much like Infidel was
saying. And I had the point of a second ago. I was trying to catch it there and I just lost it. But I can end it with that. I don't think that the one comment he made about religion there is where its own headline. It just goes back to it. It didn't
really matter. Sure, sure. And I want to highlight what Scott had to say about you sharing your story earlier, you know, because it shows what we're all about here at the ACA and on the nonprofits, because you were just casually or reinvestigating your preconceived notions, right, and that is a
work in progress. It's a constant work in progress being a skeptic to challenge the things you think you know, to admit you were wrong, or to kind of get to the root cause of why you think the way that you think, rather than just giving up and accepting what people tell you. And so I'm really glad that you were able to share that you had a real life scenario that happened, you know, recent hours ago. Yeah, really really, and you know it was fitting for the show and for what we stand for.