Ed, Greg & PZ have commented on the strange reaction of the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary toward Richard Dawkins' enthusiasm for Christmas traditions. So "why would an atheist want to sing Christmas carols?"
The same reason that the study and reading of literature has not been reduced to physics. We humans appreciate great stories, and we can conceive in our mind's eye ideas which may not be true, but we enjoy the play of those ideas nonetheless. One does not have to be a Greek pagan to appreciate the beauty and power of the Iliad, and in fact for centuries pious Christians have been moved by the poems of Homer without acceding to the reality of its relgious vision. For them Homer was not about the Truth of the gods, but the Truth of human experience. We don't need to appeal to a classical education though, anyone who reads a piece of moving fiction can be emotionally impacted, without entertaining that the narrative is real in a positivistic sense.
Today many Christians complain about a "War against Christmas," but they might be surprised to know that until recently the soldiers in that war were avowed Christians! During the 1650s the ascendant Puritans in England waged a war against Christmas because of its associations with "Popery" and paganism. The reasoned argument was that Christmas had no Biblical foundation, that was not grounded in Truth, and that a host of practices were obviously extra-Biblical interpolations from the pagan milieu of their ancestors, residue from the age of darkness before the Savior. Politically, the practice of Christmas traditions was a sign that perhaps one was for the Cavalier cause or a recusant Catholic. In the the name of utilitarian economic efficiency these early fundamentalists also abolished most holidays and religious festivals because they had no Biblical grounding, and so were not rooted in Truth, and were a waste of time and without any utility. In may ways I think these early Protestant fundamentalists had much in common with latter day social engineers, such as the Khmer Rouge, who seemed driven by an unnatural and distorted Benthanmite conception of what drives human nature and what gives joy and fullness to our lives.
I believe in human nature. We are not a blank slate into which one can pour in prior values and assume that our lives will be shaped by these exogenous inputs through a chain of necessary propositions. We enjoy good food, music, the company of family, gossip, socialization and the broader succor of our community. These are not social constructions, they are are the core of our humanity, and any belief system or model of human action which neglects these natural impulses will lead us astray. I am not denying flexibility of the parameters, but that flexibility exhibits constraints and stress when deviated from the central tendency.
It is in vogue for many evangelical Christians to assert that Jesus is a reason for the season. I think it is more complicated than this. I do not believe it is a coincidence that midwinter festivals are common across the northern hemisphere, that we look to the day of the longest night and see the rebirth of the New Year. This is common sense, and rooted in some basic human intuitions. The historical record seems to make it clear that the Christmas holiday is an a co-option of prior practices, traditions and customs. This does not deny that for some Christians it is reasonable to assert that Jesus is the reason for the season, for it is their reason, but that does not deny the validity of other points of view. Just because Christian rituals such as baptism seem to have to their antecedents in pagan traditions such as Mithraism does not mean that baptism is not a Christian ritual, it simply means that it is not necessarily a Christian ritual.
We humans have a need for many of the things which Christmas offers. Very few would deny the nobility of many of the values which are espoused during Christmas (though most would offer more caution as to the materialism which the season has been consumed by!). I have known of atheists who have an aversion to Christmas because of its Christian associations. I disagree with this tack because as an atheist my disagreements with Christianity are not with some vague essence of Christianity, but specific truth claims made by Christians and the actions of some Christians. I do not reject charity because Christians espouse this as a virtue! And neither do I reject Christmas necessarily due to the fact that Christians claim it. I have asserted in this space before that I think that the average human has a strong impulse toward religious behavior (this is inclusive of those who are not members of organized religion but accept supernaturalism as a valid way of looking at the world). I believe this is due to the modal human cognitive architecture. I do not believe there is one reason that people are religious, rather, religions encapsulate many dimensions of human existence and aspirations. I believe that the emphasis that some theists placle upon God is sincere, and I also accept that a supernatural agent is a necessary precondition for a vigorous religious movement. But, I do not believe that God stripped away of the accretions of community, ritual, and pageantry would be very attractive; the idea of God, in contemporary parlance a personal relationship with God, is not sufficient for religion. Older Christian traditions know this and manifest their beliefs in a concrete fashion with ritual, art and architecture. The nondenominational Protestant movement in the United States knows this as well, and utilize modern marketing techniques to attract religious "clients" and offer a host of non-spiritual "services." I do not accept as a matter of fact that God exists, and so in good faith I could never be a member of a theistic religion. But that does not mean that I reject all the other elements which are appealing within religion, what David S. Wilson would refer to as the "horizontal" aspects (communal) as opposed to the "vertical" (supernatural).
This is a long way of saying that a little common sense could go a long way to clarifying these issues.
- Log in to post comments
If the people whose arguments you are countering had even a little common sense, would they be likely to hold any of the positions they're known for? I doubt it.
If the people whose arguments you are countering had even a little common sense, would they be likely to hold any of the positions they're known for? I doubt it.
people can be selective in their utilization of cognitive tools. e.g., i have made this rough argument with evangelical christian acquaintances and they've found it plausible. if i did the same for their conviction that jesus christ was the son and god and was crucified and resurrected i suspect the reception would differ.
Nicely said - you really tapped into the human factor in all this.
During the 1650s the ascendant Puritans in England waged a war against Christmas because of its associations with "Popery" and paganism.
And the "war" is still being waged by the same people, in a sense, no? Indeed, Ed, Greg, and PZ are all operating out of that westward strip across the northern plains through which the original anti-Christmas warriors settled and spread their universalist values. Not that I'm accusing them of being anti-Christmas! They're obviously stating the opposite. But my impression is that most resistance to public displays of religiously-oriented (and, in particular, exclusive) Christmas celebrations will be found in this geographic swath. And on the other side, as can be gleaned from this year's War on Christmas edition at vdare.com, much of the resentment stems not just from banning Christmas celebrations, but from the sense that it is being marginalized as just one among many religious/ethnic traditions all equally deserving of public space.
I must confess though that I didn't find the Reverend's column that ridiculous - I thought his tone was more snarky than bemused. That a devout believer would express hope that those who just seem to be "playing along" with the rituals might actually get hooked doesn't seem that odd a sentiment.
It seems ziel has been reading Unqualified Reservations, or at least Murray Rothbard.
Vox Day discussed the difference between "cultural Christian" atheists and "atheist atheists" here, which I mentioned in this post and tried to find my place.
Well I do, but my real inspiration was Albion's Seed, which I was reminded of by Razib's mention of the Puritan's opposition to Christmas. I wonder how much of the current "War on Christmas" is a simple repulsion from brazen displays of religious celebration that has been carried down from Puritan forebears.
I'm an atheist for Christmas. I love Christmas. I love good times and goodwill towards all and good food and tradition and conviviality and the endearingly human always-look-on-the-bright-side defiance of the cold and dark around the solstice. On the shortest day, the rising sun shines down the long tunnel and illuminates the chamber of the Newgrange megalith, as it has every year for six thousand years. Pious or profane, sincere or not, the light in the window on Christmas Eve says something about a simple human empathy with a young family in trouble that it would be churlish to deny.
I enjoyed the Zeitgeist movie's exploration of the Christmas/Christian symbolism. It states that basically, starting with the winter solstice, the sun stays at a low point for about three days, and then starts rising in the sky for the next yearly cycles. Taking the idea that the sun was worshipped as a source of life by early humans (now is that really so far from the truth, come to think of it?), they have an elegant explanation of the "death" of the "Sun of God," on solstice (Dec 21st) followed by a three day dormant period, followed by the Rising of the Sun of God into the heavens (on Dec 25th).
Even the idea of the new year as a time in which we can forgive old wrongs and start anew is embodied in the concept that the death and rising of the Sun of God is a time for forgiveness and new beginnings.
Makes sense to me, and, given, as you point out, my human instincts to want to celebrate with my community of fellow humans, it makes about as good an excuse as you can get for some good socializing and relaxation at the year's end/beginning.
The Zeitgeist movie is free at Google vids. Part I explores the roots of Christianity/Western religion.
As you all no are no doubt aware, we are approaching December 25th, which is a very special day of the year.
On that day, many rationalists commemorate the birth of arguably the most important human being who ever lived - who more than any other was responsible for changing our world and revealing the one and only path to truth, to Mankind.
Yes my friends, I am talking about the Messiah of science, The man who was more than anyone else, the Saviour of Mankind from ignorance and superstition, Isaac Newton who was born on December 25th, 1642 (old style Julian calendar) 365 years ago this year.
I wish all visitors to this blog a Merry Newtonmas. BTW a Newtonmas tree is by tradition an apple tree (of course).
[Tragically, whilst Isaac Newton did pioneer the path of reason and science, by which we can all be intellectually free, he never was able to escape the curse of superstition himself. But then it is said that he died a virgin too.]
I'd say that being puzzled by an atheists enjoyment of Christmas in a general sense is silly, but in Dawkin's case it isn't.
Dawkins is the guy who thinks Christianity is a bad memplex that needs wiping out, even to the point that taking the kids of people away who would infect them is an idea worth discussing and exploring. It would seem that he's engaging in anti social behavior per his own standards.
In general though, I think the best explanation for Dawkin's utterances on various topics is the simplest one, Dawkins is a bear of very little brain. Why anyone cares what he thinks when it is so stinking obvious that he's about as good at thinking as I am at ballet dancing is, a problem for someone very good at thinking.
Dawkins is the guy who thinks Christianity is a bad memplex that needs wiping out, even to the point that taking the kids of people away who would infect them is an idea worth discussing and exploring. It would seem that he's engaging in anti social behavior per his own standards.
this is a fair point, but i don't think it precisely maps dawkins' own thought. in beyond belief david s. wilson interrogated dawkins about his problems with religion it and seems that his fixation is with whether god is true. he doesn't give much thought to the rest of it in a focused way.
Why anyone cares what he thinks when it is so stinking obvious that he's about as good at thinking as I am at ballet dancing is, a problem for someone very good at thinking.
he has some grace in thinking about biology. do you reduce a man to one dimension.
Given the long list of his accomplishments, I fail to see how that is the simplest explanation.
I'd say Dawkins problems with religion boil down to his insistence on understanding whatever religion he might or not adhere too, when he is obviously not equipped for it. no matter how slow one might talk to him. If he were he might understand atheism, which he rather amusingly doesn't.
Per biology, well you're the biologist, and you're opinion is better that mine on that, though when I read his stuff on evolution, his discussion is at a level of generality that evolution is the intellectual equivalent of tic tac doe strategy, though my knowledge of his writings is far from comprehensive and I'm perfectly willing to be told that I'm wrong about him. If I am wrong about that though, and I didn't believe in g, I'd think he'd be a good arguement against it's existence. :).
Per Dawkins accomplishments, I believe he is an accomplished 'populizer', he writes pop science books. I am not sure about what he actually did to contribute to the sum total of scientific knowledge, but I think it consisted of staring at insects for long periods of time and writing down what they did.
Per Dawkins accomplishments, I believe he is an accomplished 'populizer', he writes pop science books. I am not sure about what he actually did to contribute to the sum total of scientific knowledge, but I think it consisted of staring at insects for long periods of time and writing down what they did.
he was an ethologist. i think he studied birds or some such thing. i think it is fair to say that dawkins brilliance shines through in his prose and his ability to popularize biological topics. he isn't a first rank researcher, such as e.o. wilson was before he turned to producing popularizations. that being said, he's obviously smart and good at what he does. should i also say dawkins is dull because i think his politics are overly simple and not thought out?
if his writings on religion (e.g., the god delusion) were the only judge of the man, then contending that he was an empty suit might be warranted. i don't think his thoughts are much more sophisticated than that of the village atheist of 1800 (looking at the bibliography though i am certain dawkins' intent was produce to a clear and intellectually undemanding polemic, i think he could have done better, but i also think that a more analytic work wouldn't have served his purpose). that being said, we do know he has another body of work, and it is substantial enough that festschrift was produced in his honor, with some reputable intellectuals making contributions.
Razib:
Well actually, I guess I sounded a bit too contemptuous about Dawkins being a 'populizer', that's the same thing as being a teacher, and that's someting I think is a calling with nobility in it. One can increase the sum total human knowledge by spreading it as well as adding to the feedstock. I think humanities education would get a lot better if all the profs focused on teaching what's there than creating 'new' knowledge, most of which is drivel anyway.
Though I'm not sure about what was Dawkin's 'intent' with his book. I'd be perfectly willing to bet that if I pulled aside Bertrand Russell and said something to him like "Bert! You do know that that 'Why I am not a Christian' stuff, could be with perfect justice be titled 'The top ten stupidest reasons I could think of why one might not be a christian", he'd of replied with 'Hey, I make my living writing stuff like this, and my fans eat it up! And I don't like living cheap." I think this because I think Russell was very smart, even though I think most of his philosophy was wrong and bad, and the part that wasn't ended up being a contribution to the existence of slightly useful systems of stenography. Dawkins seems to believe the stuff he writes.
Never heard of a 'festshrift'. If I ever use the word it will take me at least 20 tries to consistently spell it right and I have no idea how to say it.
Did you see this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?_r=2&8dpc=&pagewan…
For me religion is poetic realism. The Christmas story is a beautiful narrative, and that guy Jesus, in my judgment, has had an enormous influence on history. He is a secular hero, and I think it is right that we celebrate his birthday.
Dawkins seems to believe the stuff he writes.
which of his books have you read out of curiosity?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?_r=2&8dpc=&pagewan…
yes. i'm as interested in this as i'm interested in qualia. not much.
Humbug.
Is this turning into another "assumption of a mechanistic universe is not more valid than belief in God" thread?
Christmas is cultural. The fact that much of this tradition has been adduced by Christianity (building upon various pre-existing pagan bases, including Yule, Saturnalia, whatever) is irrelevant; you might as well argue about the contribution of the Coca-Cola corporation (turning Saint Nicholas into that red-coated, white-bearded, slightly creepy Santa Claus).
The French, arguably the most thoroughly secularised nation in Europe, avidly celebrate "Noel" and put little "creches" (representations of Nativity) under their Christmas trees, just in the same way that they still baptise their children and marry in churches. This holds even for fully secular households (i.e. the majority), as I can attest. The Christian traditions have been expurged from their potentially dangerous elements (i.e. actual belief) and are now used as a harmless common cultural basis. I do hope things can stay that way, and I don't see why enjoying Christmas celebrations should entail believing that Yechouah of Nazareth actually came back from the dead (but conveniently avoided public exposure after this neat little trick).
I have only read articles by him, no books, maybe I should have said 'extremely far from comprensive' rather than 'far from comprehensive'. If you think he's up on his biology, that's good enough for me.
Per his 'festshrift' though, I'd say if that was concerning his career as a 'Public Understanding of Science' professor rather than an ethology, that would be very bad for using 'festshrift's for evidentiary value, since Dawkins' understanding of empiricism is rather tenuous to say the least, per articles of his explaining what 'science' means. I am up on my empiricism.
I suppose I will stop my Dawkins bashing for now, as I might be getting a bit irritating and this is chez Razib not chez moi. For my ancestors, the opinions of stupid but influential Englishman were often no laughing matter, and since that's no longer true anymore, I guess I might overdo it as to getting my laughs in.
Anyway, Merry Christmas. And on the odd chance you are reading this, Merry Christmas to you, Professor Dawkins!
he read's pz's blog. leave the comment there ;-)
Per his 'festshrift' though, I'd say if that was concerning his career as a 'Public Understanding of Science' professor rather than an ethology, that would be very bad for using 'festshrift's for evidentiary value, since Dawkins' understanding of empiricism is rather tenuous to say the least, per articles of his explaining what 'science' means. I am up on my empiricism.
i actually thought it was a weird book. it's kind of all over the place. some serious quantitative biologists as well as philosophers and novelists.