There can be little that is more insulting to a belief system than to be a champion for its antithesis while claiming to be a product of its cultural charm.
In his debate with Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins has restated that he is “a cultural Anglican”, implying that Anglicanism bears no relation to Christianity – which Dawkins hates – whatsoever. In Dawkins’ eyes and in the eyes of many others, to be Anglican is nothing more than to maintain a veneer of benign, doddering, civilising gentility over a society that openly ridicules what it once stood for.
From here:
Early in his address, Prof Dawkins made a provocative comparison between Christian and Islamic traditions, describing himself as a ”cultural Anglican”.
”I’m grateful, by the way, to be a cultural Anglican when you think of the competition,” he added.
”If I were a cultural Muslim, I would have something to say about that faith’s appalling attitude to women and various other moral points.”
“‘It peddles false explanations where real explanations could have been offered, false explanations that get in the way of the enterprise of discovering real explanations,” he said.”
Instead of arguing religion’s (presumed) negatives, why doesn’t Prof Dawkins argue atheism’s positives? For instance, why would anyone in his brave new world care what is false and what is true?
@Lisa
Because Dawkins knows his target audience is not interested in really searching through the evidence, and deeply studying the issue. He is preaching to people who want the feeblest “reasons to disbelieve”, and to confirm them in their arrogantly radical ego-centric view of the world.
When you look at his audience and the extreme intellectual arrogance and the pride they have in applauding the weakest arguments that Christians have refuted generations ago, it makes me wonder how these people could possibly consider themselves the “brights”.
The intellectual legwork; the serious philosophical engagement; the cautious and careful research seems to be happening primarily on the Christian side.
Yes, because for them it is just a game; we know what is really at stake.
Hi, I am from Australia.
In some sense Richard Dawkins is quite correct in claiming to be a “cultural Anglican”, because the fabricated world-view created by Christianity and Anglicanism permeates every aspect of British culture.
Please check out these references which provide a radical critique of conventional exoteric religion – and Dawkin’s dismal scientism too.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-2.htm
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx
http://global.adidam.org/truth-book/true-spiritual-practice-4.html
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.aspx
“Fabricated world-view,” you mean of the kind that uses language and money and charted the South Pacific?
Dawkins lost the debate by 324 votes to 136. Evidently he didn’t convince the audience either.