richard dawkins

“I’m a cultural Christian”, says Richard Dawkins

/ MurrayCampbell

“When you give up Christian faith, you pull the rug out from under your right to Christian morality as well. This is anything but obvious: you have to keep driving this point home, English idiots to the contrary.” (Nietzsche)

Richard Dawkins is now a self professing, “cultural Christian”.

Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous atheist of my lifetime. He is a noted scientist, author of the best-selling book, The God Delusion, and fanboy for many an ardent God nonbeliever. For more than 20 years, Richard Dawkins has provided millions with reason not to believe, and with an ammunition dump of rhetorical flares for dismissing theism, and especially Christianity.

“You know I love hymns and Christmas Carols. I feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense”.

The new atheism, like earlier thought movements and ones yet to come, arrived on the scene, peaked, and is now crumbling. There will be devotees who will hold onto splintered rocks as they come hurtling down. Dawkins, however, seems to have jumped.

Okay, ‘jumped’ is an overstatement, but Dawkins’ version of atheism seems to have changed tack, and in a positive way (or at least in this interview). He has left behind the stinging attacks and is gently embracing the world that Christianity has provided.

To some, Dawkins must have suffered a brain aneurysm. 

Aaron Bastoni tweeted,

“Bizarre from Dawkins, who wrote a book called ‘The God Delusion’ claiming religion was a deeply malevolent, dividing force in the world. 

Now he’s calling himself a ‘cultural Christian’? Find it odd to use religion to extend your secular political points.”

In comes Tom Holland, the super historian to the scene of the crime. 

“Not really, because secularism & Dawkins’ own brand of evangelical atheism are both expressions of a specifically Christian culture – as Dawkins himself, sitting on the branch he’s been sawing through and gazing nervously at the ground far below, seems to have begun to realise.”

Holland is spot on. My initial response was this,

“Richard Dawkins wants to keep the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the beliefs of Christianity. 

Of course that’s not logical or desirable. Nonetheless, is Richard Dawkins moving away from his past rhetoric and a priori assumptions?”

The fruit of Christianity, the ethics and architecture, the music and its role in shaping political theory and the marketplace, all have an origin story in the Bible and especially in the God-Man Jesus Christ. The fruit comes from somewhere and that somewhere is more audacious and stunning than 21st Century observers realise.

The claim of Christianity is that there is a God behind all the fruit we taste and eat and enjoy. He is not an error or grumpy old jack-in-the-box who loves to surprise us with horrible things. 

Dawkins admits that the social good has an origins story and it is integrally tied to the Christian faith, although he is still unwilling to believe in the Divine.

“There is a difference between being a believing Christian and a cultural Christian”.

Yes,  there is one who enjoys the fruit and gives thanks to the giver, and those who eat and have their fill while not giving thanks to the provider.

Dawkin’s admission is an intellectually and morally honest one. Read Holland’s, ‘Dominion’; or Glen Scrivener’s ‘The Air We Breathe’.  For those who wish to press more eagerly into the bedrock that gives our culture form and substance, read Dr Christopher Watkin’s masterpiece, ‘Biblical Critical Theory’. 

The beautiful and the good, the necessary and the true, haven’t altogether disappeared from our culture. And while these depend upon a God of such quality, excising God has not yet fully removed them from the scene. Chris Watkin notes, 

“religious and theological ideas have not been threshed away from society, nor have they been abandoned in a general disenchantment. They have merely migrated within society, moving away from God and attaching themselves to other ideas and institutions (primarily the nation state) where their influence is still profound. “

Watkin develops what he calls, the ‘migration thesis’, 

“For the migration thesis, secular late modernity relates to Christianity neither as an antithesis nor as a carbon copy but as a parody: “The city is a poor imitation of heavenly community; the modern state, a deformed version of the ecclesia; the market, a distortion of consummation; modern entertainment, a caricature of joy; schooling, a misrepresentation of true formation; liberalism, a crass simulacrum of freedom; and the sovereignty we accord to the self, a parody of God himself.

What all these instances of migration share is a desire to appropriate the goods and benefits of God while ignoring and excluding God himself, a move I have elsewhere called “imitative atheism.””

In other words, Richard Dawkins is admiring and eating the fruit of Christianity. He is happily tasting the sweetness and embracing the aromas and feeling the textures of the fruit, but he still denies the reality of the living tree from which the fruit has grown. The tree is no more dead or invisible than is the fruit we eat.

If you are looking for a ‘right now’ example of where both the root and the fruit of Christianity have been severed, look no further than Matthew Parris and his Easter edict in The Times. In ‘We can’t afford a taboo on assisted dying’, Parris says the unspeakable, euthanasia should not be limited to those with terminal and imminent death, but open to all who are a ‘burden’ on society. 

“Let’s acknowledge and confront the strongest argument against assisted dying. As (objectors say) the practice spreads, social and cultural pressure will grow on the terminally ill to hasten their own deaths so as “not to be a burden” on others or themselves.I believe this will indeed come to pass. And I would welcome it.”

The elderly, the mentally unwell, the sick, and the poor, should all have death presented to them as a viable option, to stop their lives from being a burden to others.

“Often not for the final years of these extended retirements, often characterised by immobility, ill-health and dementia: and typically wildly expensive, cornering resources to fund our health and social care sectors. This imbalance helps explain governments’ desperate reliance on immigration — to the rage of electorates who won’t face the fundamental question: how are our economies going to pay for the ruinously expensive overhang that dare not speak its name: old age and infirmity?”

Parris is willing to throw away both the fruit and the tree. What remains? It’s every man for themselves. It is self-interest and self-preservation. He isn’t utilising the more carefully constructed argument of how euthanasia is an act of love for the sufferer. No, he preaches that those who weigh down society with cost and time and energy, are a problem to him and his own flourishing.

For all the double-speak about equality and human rights, the logical endpoint of secular humanism is mass selective death: death of the vulnerable, the aged and infirmed, for the sake of the fit and strong. 

Australia’s Peter Singer has been singing this tune for decades, following his mate Nietzsche. He has been lauded in the halls of our ABC and presented as a voice to listen to. Universities pine for opportunities to hear him espouse his liberation to death sequence of ethics. And now, voices like Matthew Harris are deemed important enough to have their vision of death published in the United Kingdom’s most famed newspaper. 

The irony of the timing. Easter has been and gone, but the reality of the Easter event remains constant and ever relevant. 

God hates death and so should we. His Son endured death on our behalf. The resurrection of Jesus says that every human life has value. Death is a great enemy. How different is the Apostolic testimony to Matthew Parris. Which resonates more? You are a burden, so die! Or the words of the Apostle Paul,

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.  When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

 “Where, O death, is your victory?
    Where, O death, is your sting?

 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”. (1 Corinthians 15:50-57)

Going back to Dr Dawkins, perhaps we have entered a ‘watch this space’ moment. 

We can only eat the fruit of Christianity for so long before the season runs out. Then, we will either go hungry and starve, or we will repent and return to the source and cry out to God for food to eat and enjoy.

Richard Dawkins asks an important question and here is my answer

/ MurrayCampbell

I can imagine Richard Dawkins sitting in the back row at the Areopagus, stern-faced and shaking head, and leading a small chorus of sceptics.

Richard Dawkins is continuing his mission to evangelise people out of Christianity (and religion altogether) and to secure his message of a world without hope. 

Today in a video message, he asks, ‘Do you want to be comforted by a falsehood?’

It’s a good question and an important one. Does anyone want to find consolation in a fabrication? Does anyone want to pour all their hopes into a dead end? For Professor Dawkins death is of course the dead end, with nothing beyond and no light to give hope to either the dead or those who are left behind. 

“When your brain decays there is absolutely no reason to suppose your consciousness will continue, so the grounds of plausibility, the balance of plausibility is heavily in favour or there been no survival after death and that is something and that is something we need to live with. It’s not all that horrifying a prospect when you think about it because we think as Mark Twain said, ‘I’ve been dead for billions of years before I was born and never suffered the smallest inconvenience.” 

I suspect that Dawkins’ answer will arouse applause and retweets from fans and devotees, and with a satisfied Amen. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether he’s right or not, his answer isn’t particularly consoling. Dawkins says that he finds solace in the finality of being no more, but I suspect most people including a lot of atheists are not so convinced. Our intellectual commitments (whether theistic or atheistic) come under a sudden assault when death approaches and when a loved one is lowered into the grave. There is a longing for death not to win. There is palpable hope that life may continue and love to beat any final breath. 

Why divorce cognitive processes from heart filled yearnings? Of course, the two can be in conflict and they can also partner together as a harmonious duet, as we find in Christian theism.

Dawkins (and fellow atheists) believes that once our final breath expires and we are buried, the totality of what we were begins to rot and we cease to be. All that is left is the box in the ground holding our biological material and the memories that people have of you. Again, some readers may find that a satisfying end of the story, but most of us don’t. Whether we find it satisfying or not isn’t evidence of what is ultimately true.

The thing about the Christian view of resurrection is not one of lacking commitment to the intellectual process but appreciating that there is more going on. It is not wrong to appeal to deep heart filled longings, for those emotional impulses are part of who we are as human beings. We are more than those heart desires, not less.

I believe, along with Oxford and Cambridge Dons, scientists, poets, plumbers and children, that the Christian explanation of resurrection is both intellectually satisfying and emotionally, psychologically, spiritually liberating and consoling.

Something happened that day just outside Jerusalem that changed the world. Women and men saw something that didn’t compute. The evidence defied their prior assumptions and challenged their emotional state. They saw and heard and touched Jesus raised from the dead. 

Before we line up the Biblical accounts with ancient mythology, we mustn’t assume that resurrection was a commonly held view in the ancient world, for that is not the case. Many ancient religions believed in some kind of life after death, although not all (including many Athenians in the First Century AD).  The Christian notion of resurrection is altogether different 

As Dr Chrisopher Watkin summarises in his new volume, Biblical Critical Theory, 

“The nature of the resurrection is very different to the ancient notion of rising gods known as apotheosis. The bodily nature of resurrection sets the Christian claim apart from other superficially similar narrative patterns in the ancient world. The Romans, for example, were familiar with the idea that a mortal person could undergo an apotheosis to become a god, but apotheoses were spiritual, not bodily, and the deified mortal would not be expected to tread the streets of Jerusalem for forty days before ascending to heaven. Apotheosis was also a privilege reserved for the rich and mighty, not for the common artisan and certainly not for the crucified criminal. Christ’s resurrection was also different from the myths of dying and rising agricultural gods in other pagan religions. N. T. Wright, author of the 740-page The Resurrection of the Son of God insists that “even supposing Jesus’s very Jewish followers knew any traditions like those pagan ones—nobody in those religions ever supposed it actually happened to individual humans.”

Richard Dawkins talks about plausibility, as does the Apostle Paul at the Areopagus. He insists, let’s examine the evidence. At that centre of Athenian learning and thought, Paul argues for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. He began, 

“He  [God] has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Proof? I can hear Dawkins of Athens reproving! What proof? Dead people stay dead. Their brains, blood, muscles and organs decay and become a manure in a box. 

Of course, Paul, like Jesus and like Christians everywhere, knew that dead people don’t rise. That’s the point and the resurrection testifies to our wrong assumptions about God and life and death. 

What I found interesting in Dawkins’s tweet is how he relies heavily on Bible reasoning in order to muster an argument against God and the notion of life beyond death.  Take, for example, this paragraph from Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, 

“But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ” (1 Corinthians 15:12-18)

The Apostle, and subsequently Christian theologians, scientists, and believers in general, all understand the implausibility of resurrection and understand that single event of history that dumbfounds the Sadducees and Epicureans of every age. 

It is worth noting that Paul’s words were written within 20 years of the events that surrounded Jesus’ death in Jerusalem. He even says to his readers, that many eyewitnesses are still alive so go and talk to them. His are not the words of someone covering up evidence and trying to commit fraud on the public. The resurrection is a public event that is open to investigation. 

For Dawkins, as brilliant a scientist as he is, he believes in a closed universe and so it’s unlikely that he’ll accept any compelling evidence that punctures his system. Even Jesus was aware of how our a priori commitments block us. He famously said, “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Why? Because there is more going on in our minds and hearts than just intellectual questions and the pursuit of what happened.

Richard Dawkins may have made up his mind, but death will continue to haunt us. The grave is the one appointment we hope to avoid and yet will come. To take consolation in Christ is not fake or feeble, but reason finding hope. 

If you are interested, below is a short summary of the evidence outlined in the New Testament as well as a summary of some of the more popular objections to the resurrection.

The facts:

1. Weeks out from his death on the cross Jesus predicted with startling accuracy what would happen.

 “Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life”. (Matt 16:21)

2. Jesus genuinely died and his death was verified by the executing authorities (Matt 27:50-54)

3. After Jesus’ death had been verified, Pilate released the body to Joseph of Arimathea who buried it in his own new tomb, carved out of rock in a garden near the place of the crucifixion (Matt 27:57-60).

4. The tomb was sealed and was guarded by Roman soldiers (Matt 27:62-66).

5. A number of women witnessed the burial and presumably the posting of the guard (Matt 27:61)

6. On the Sunday following the crucifixion the body was no longer in the tomb (Matt 28:1-7).

7. That same day, and over the next 40 days, Jesus met with his original disciples and others (later Saul). During this period the commission to be his witnesses, first to the Jews and then to the nations, was given by Jesus himself (Matt 28:1-20)

8. After 40 days Jesus was taken up into heaven, a cloud hiding him from sight (Acts 1:9-11)

Some arguments against the resurrection:

TheoryChief exponentsSome suggested responses
Intentional fraud by the disciplesJewish High Priests; H.S Reimarus (1787)How could it be done despite the guard and the suspicion of the authorities? How could the lie be sustained for the rest of their lives and in the face of fierce persecution?
Swoon TheoryPaulus (1833) Huxley (1896) Thiering (1992)His death was verified by experts when Pilate raised questions. If he did revive in the cool of the tomb, how did he roll away the stone, get past the guard, and walk all the way to Emmaus with those wounds?
The women went to the wrong tombLake (1907)The women were nearby as Jesus was buried. Joseph of Arimathea would certainly know which tomb was his. The guards and the seal would have made the tomb rather conspicuous. The authorities could have just gone to the right tomb and produced the body.
Jesus was never actually crucified (someone was)The KoranIt is inconceivable that the Jewish authorities would have stood by whilst the Romans crucified the wrong man. Surely this argument would have been used by the Jews to combat the apostle’s preaching if it was true (and even if it wasn’t but was credible)
The resurrection is an allegory not a factWoolston (1728)There is no evidence in the Gospels that this part of the narrative is allegorical as opposed to the rest.
HallucinationStrauss (1835) Spong (1993)The number and variety of people, times, and types of appearances tell against this theory. This attitude of the disciples was either fearful or aggressively opposed (Saul) at the time of the appearances. Fear and aggression are not the usual preconditions for a hallucination of an unprecedented event.
Spiritual resurrection and/ or divine vision evoking faith in the disciplesKeim (1883) Lampe (1966) Carnley (1987)Jesus himself goes to great lengths to demonstrate he is not a ghost or a vision. The empty tomb is unnecessary and the arguments of Paul do not make sense if the resurrection does not involve the crucified body of Jesus. What happened to the body?

Lord’s Prayer Banned

/ MurrayCampbell / 3 Comments

The Lord’s prayer is more wonderful and more dangerous than you think.

A 60 second advert produced by the Church of England has been banned by some of Britain’s cinema chains.

The advert features various individuals and smalls groups taking turn in reciting lines from the Lord’s prayer, and the advert ends with this call, ‘Prayer is for everyone. #justpray’

IMG_3856

The pray itself doesn’t belong to the Church of England, the words originate with Jesus himself, and they form part of his broader teaching on prayer to his disciples, which one can read in Matthew’s Gospel.

Digital Cinema Media (who own many of the cinemas), have explained that they have a policy of not accepting political or religious advertisements, in the case that they might cause offence. Leave aside the fact that many movies are an insult to art and to our intelligence, if Digital Cinema Media were so concerned about offending people should they not show care in their choice of movies being screened? How many films offend peoples religions (including Muslim people)?

Speaking to the Guardian, outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins said, “My immediate response was to tweet that it was a violation of freedom of speech. But I deleted it when respondents convinced me that it was a matter of commercial judgment on the part of the cinemas, not so much a free speech issue. I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.”

Watch the advert and decide for yourself, but I find myself leaning toward Dr Dawkins (and he says miracles can’t happen!).

While I believe Digital Cinema Media’s decision is silly, I also think the advert’s producers have made some errors.

For example,

#justpray is misleading because it could be easily misconstrued as, just pray to whoever; the details don’t really matter. I realise that’s not the intent, which of course makes the hashtag all the more unhelpful.

A more significant concern is the invitation to call God, Father. This is an incredibly wonderful idea, and it is unique to Christianity. To know God as Father suggests that he is not an impersonal being, but he is relational and personal. What a remarkable concept Jesus is teaching.

But he is not everyone’s Father, and therefore it is imprudent to call him such. The Bible shows us that we only have the privilege of knowing God as Father through faith in his Son. It is inappropriate for any child to call me dad, only my children can do that. Similarly, only God’s children can truly address him as Father. One of the great truths of Christianity however is that we can come to know him as Father.

‘In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4-5). The Bible teaches us that we can know God as Father, but it is through Jesus. By trusting in his death and resurrection, we are no longer separated from God, but are included into his people and brought into a personal relationship with God.

Finally, when we pray, ‘your kingdom come’, we are asking for God to not only save, but also to judge this sinful world. It is calling for God to rid the world of every evil and injustice, including our own. Should we encourage people to ask God for this, especially if they themselves don’t believe in Jesus Christ?

I would love to hear more people praying the Lord’s prayer, but it is ill-advised to invite people to pray what they do not believe or understand.

My suggestion is, amend the unhelpful hashtag, and perhaps add a warning about praying without understanding.

Having offered the above criticisms, overall, I really liked the advert. The line which particularly struck me this morning was, ‘Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.’ What a powerful testimony this could be in light of the dreadful acts that are being enacted around the world. Jesus is pointing us to God who can forgive sins.

Pray with understanding:

Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be done,

on earth as in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

Forgive us our sins

as we forgive those who sin against us.

Lead us not into temptation

but deliver us from evil.

For the kingdom, the power,

and the glory are yours

now and for ever.

Amen.