Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

the reason they killed is the same. they had some variety of mental health challenge. the rituals they used may be affected by their environment, but i sincerely doubt the actual urge to kill was. not at all. i don't care who disagrees with me. i'm interested in demonstrating when people are disrespectful to each other. you don't have to claim that all religious people empower murderers in order to say that guy is an asshole. you said you couldn't. then not all religion is responsible for empowering murderers. maybe the problem is with individuals?imagine that. your type doesn't seem too keen on your type being criticized either. this is normal behavior and has nothing to do with why the group exists. you protect your own. who said anything about holding off. why do you assume things? care to revisit, now? religion is the ritualistic aspect of culture. it does not require belief in the supernatural. if this makes things hard for you to understand, i'm sorry, but the boundaries are in your head, and not in reality.just as there is little distinction between psychology, politics, history, and economics, there is little difference between religion and culture. the need humans have developed to package things into discrete little boxes is a great disservice. no. christmas is that collection of rituals. december is a time of year. his failure to understand that is his problem. no, it isn't. taking part in a worship ritual which you don't believe in is disrespectful to your disbelief and disrespectful to the belief of those participating in the ritual honestly.if you're okay with being disrespectful and dishonest, that's your problem. considering the roman empire, there's not a great deal of difference anymore. you said you couldn't demonstrate it.

Excellent! This will give us valuable data on whatever variety of mental health problems they were having. You must have missed my point. I wasn't actually claiming it was your agenda, I was providing examples of equally baseless accusations about secret agendas mixed with a call for evidence should happen to have any to back it up. I didn't say you did. You can claim that a society that holds virtuous the belief in something without evidence, you are providing a breeding ground for crazy and dangerous beliefs, if that is what you think is the case. I was referring to an individual who was being defamed because I was thinking about damaging reputation. Criticising what you see as a negative social practice is hardly defamation. I said I couldn't use evidence to show that evidence was a good way to come to decisions. I did say that I can use evidence and reasoning to demonstrate that faith-based reasoning is more prone to error. Not all doesn't mean not any. Individuals don't exist in vacuums, they exist in societies. It is possible that certain societal practices have certain non-obvious consequences which certain people might not want. Those certain people might try and argue their position to elicit a change in their society. A complete truism, which is why mobs that do what they essentially promote criticism (despite how much they do not like it directed at themselves) are something to be desired over mobs that have secured themselves a position of not getting criticized for fear of offending the mobs and being accused of defaming said mob. It confuses the issue not because of my poor little head that can't understand the point you were making, but because of common usage. As I said, Dawkins is religious by your definition, and by your definition Dawkins is not criticising religion he's not an anti-religionist but an anti-dogmaticsupernaturalist.I'm perfectly happy to continue discussing this as if Dawkins were a religious man - he himself has said that by certain definitions he is religious. No problem. Are you suggesting that Dawkins fails to understand that December is a time of year or that christmas is a collection of rituals? Where on earth did you get that bizarre idea from? Christmas is also a time of year, in as real a sense as 'December' is. And yes, it is also the collection of rituals I mentioned. Yeah, I love being disrespectful and dishonest. My trademark that. No, the difference is in what we consider disrespectful and dishonest. I don't think it is either disrespectful nor dishonest to sing songs in happiness and joy to celebrate family or a cultural heritage while someone else is singing those same songs for a different reason. Well it's all ancestor worship anyway, and there's nothing wrong with endorsing that is there? Dawkins and Christians are clearly endorsing the same thing and are both being equally honest about it when they sing their songs endorsing paganism and deck the halls and leave coal outside their door. Seems there has been a bit of a mixup. Let me draw this to your attention in a hope to clarify:

quote:

---

My mode of reasoning isn't pure empiricism so to be philosophically consistent I don't need to rely purely on empiricism. I can rely on empiricism and reasoning. If you want we me to justify my reasoning style empirical/reason based argument as to why faith-based reasoning is more prone to error I would be happy to see what I can do, in a thread that is more relevant.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

agendas don't have to be secret conspiracies. i thought the whole problem was that endorsing religion endorses harmful groupthink? when i asked you to produce a scientific study demonstrating that faith-based reasoning is more prone to error, you said you couldn't. until you produce this study, all claims to this end must be assumed to be from a position of faith, since they cannot be empirically demonstrated.

Even this off topic aside is getting off topic. Nobody mentioned any secret conspiracies. You made the claim that Dawkins has a certain hidden agenda, you did not provide any evidence of it. The same kind of claim could be made of just about anybody anytime anywhere. That's all. We're back to the beginning again I see. No - the problem is that endorsing faith-based reasoning creates fertile grounds for people to come do dangerous moral conclusions with less checks against reality demanded.If so many prevalent religious faiths, did not encourage faith-based moral reasoning there would be a much lesser problem - that is the claim. I said that I couldn't produce a scientific study that demonstrates that the scientific method is less prone to errors since that would be circular - that is to say the definition of error would be defined in terms of what science considers to be erroneous and that would be anything that diverged from the scientific method. Thus it is trivially true that science would show that other methods of reasoning are more prone to error. That is to say: a reasoning error in empirical reasoning is reasoning that does not cohere or correspond with evidence gained from the outside world.However, if you aren't going to worry about such things, I have offered to discuss the issue in another thread, time permitting, using reason and evidence.

quote:

---

i've seen episodes of his show. that's enough to tell me he's a jerk and i have no interest in reading his book.

---

I have interest in reading the books of all sorts of people I consider jerks; Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, etc.The difference between Dawkins and those other people is that Dawkins is an abrasive, brilliant scientist, while all of those other people are abrasive, lightweight infotainers.I daresay you will get more out of your Dawkins book that I will out of any of the others'. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

i never claimed his agenda was hidden. not all agendas are secret conspiracies. his agenda is very obvious. prove it. well then. since you scream at everyone else for touting circular logic, stop.

i doubt i would get anything out of any of them. i prefer to read books about facts.

They say Grace in Latin at Oxford and Cambridge colleges when dining in Hall. It's a tradition. I think this is what's being referred to.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ah, the old 'it's so obvious a claim it requires no support' chestnut. As long as we are clear on that I think we can leave that avenue alone. Yes, I have to support my position, whereas you are allowed to get away with the 'its obvious' defence. Every time you have asked I do this I say the same thing. It involves a comment that it would be offtopic and the suggestion it is done in another thread. Do I need to repeat myself any more times? I am suggesting that you are demanding that I engage in circular logic which I point out is silly. Your demand is that I prove my philosophy using a methodology borne out from said philosophy is clearly ridiculous. Since I am refusing to engage in circular logic, it seems odd that you would state that I am engaging in circular logic.I am happy to present an argument for my case as to why empirical/rational reasoning produces less error than faith-based reasoning - in a thread appropriate for doing that. None of this is important to the topic of Dawkins singing Christmas carols.All that is important here is what Dawkins' position is (not its correctness) and whether this comes into significant conflict with singing Christmas carols (or generally regarding other religious rituals).

Well, I suppose, makes sense since its other name is "Christ's College."

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

I haven't really been paying attention to this thread because I personally don't find it odd if Dawkins partakes of traditional carols with yuletide glee.But I have recently been watching the exchange between yourself and Brenna, though, admittedly, its been only through cursory glances. What I notice is that it doesn't appear that you two are in great disagreement.I really can't locate the source of the contention.It seems as if you both are in general agreement with only some minor disparities. What on earth are you two arguing about then?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Christ's is the name of one of the colleges at Cambridge.(There's also one called Darwin. Yay.)

This is a nice reply. And in part I agree. No, I agree one can find aesthetic interests (and perhaps some others) within cultures whose other tenets you dislike... perhaps intensely. This latter part is where I start having some issues, particularly if we are discussing Dawkins.My first point would be to say we can always find brotherhood and connectedness outside of any patently religious source. I'm not sure why a person who finds religion so awful would want to use those rituals as the glue.Second, Dawkins has championed the concept of memes. He states that the god meme is viral. It is rather odd to believe maintaining arcane rituals and music based around faith in gods, is somehow going to diminish the presence of this meme. Indeed, for some strange reason he believes to understand the words and meanings of the words in religious music actually helps a person enjoy it. Other than historically, how would it help?Thirdly, he argues that moderates empower fundamentalists. His use of religious material and practices most certainly empowers moderates. That would seem to be inconsistent.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well that kind of argument won't get you very far. I agree with portions of what he says, and disagree with other portions. Or does my opinion not count? Heheheh... just razzing ya a bit. Yes, you are right about that. It is something that Rrhain pointed out as well. But I think there is a difference with the position Dawkins has taken. The very existence of religion is problematic to him, and its thought viral and delusional. That would logically start impacting what you can take from it to be "worthwhile".Again, unless a person is inclined to enjoy the howling of asylum inmates, and repeating any delusional fantasies they may have right in front of them?Further he seems to take more than a casual delight in elements of that culture. There is a line between saying, so that music could be enjoyable, and saying knowing the words (praising god) makes the music even better. Really? So he can't appreciate African music, without understanding any religious meaning within the words they might sing?There is also a huge line between saying one appreciates aspects of religious culture (of all kinds), and specifying that one is a "cultural Xian". Especially as a liberal scientist, one would expect him to be at least equally "culturally Jewish". Actually "evil", no. Evil does not exist. As a term describing something generally malign and causing much pain, yes they would be described as evil. Without question total bastards. One look at Goering and you know they weren't all health freaks. While many of them were into: health, environmentalism, vegetarianism, animals, that was not a mandatory tenet of Nazism. Or perhaps better put, that was not something unique to Nazism, as Xian music really is Xian music.And here is where I can produce an example that might change your mind. Would it make sense... not be hypocritical... for a Jew who routinely berates racism, and condemns the Nazis, to announce (s)he is a "cultural Nazi" and wear uniforms, or sing their stirring songs of nationalism? To suggest people need to understand the words praising Hitler to enjoy the music better? If you believe there is a war against you, and that it is imperative the other side be stopped. That their very existence... even in moderation... leads to fundamentalist violence, and spreads virally... then I would say there is some hypocrisy. Otherwise, what you just wrote indicates no hypocrisy.I too am tired of the rise of thoughtless fundamentalism, and its effects on our society. That is not the same as what Dawkins is arguing. It is having specific problems with a faction, and their effects. That's all. Well again, unless you are taking the position Dawkins has, that doesn't seem hypocritical. Do you believe religion must be ended?That said, you don't really pray to God (Hank) do you? Isn't it simply repeating the gestures and words others are doing? Here's an interesting anecdote about an atheist on that same subject. Heheheh... then you are blind. This would be like a Nazi marrying a Jew, or vice versa. You can't find the person you are marrying delusional, and their thoughts both false and needing to be ended on earth, and have a healthy relationship. I'm not sure what the wife thing has to do here. Do you mean he wasn't trying to hide his pleasure of Xian culture? That would be a slight difference, but only slight. That's why I think Dawkins supporters are even more divorced from reality on the subject than gay-congressmen supporting conservatives. The equivalent would be that the anti-gay congressmen openly enjoyed gay culture, touting himself as "culturally gay" (let's say "metro"), and the rest saying nothing. If you're just going to appreciate the music, or the scenery, then no... unless your anger is so great that you feel the people around you are empowering terrorists, are wholly delusional, and their thoughts not only infectious, but must be ended for humanity to see a better day.I think people who simply do not believe in gods, are not hypocritical in enjoying the fruits of religions. They can even be upset with some of the more extreme elements of those religions, and not like the effect some of their religiously inspired policies have on the nation. Those are topical, specific issues... not existential ones.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Thanks for posting the full video (and in only two parts, I watched it as twelve separate parts). As I said in my post, I hope people will take the time to view the entire "Four Horsemen" video. It should be interesting to atheists and theists alike... Thankfully no one said whether she was an atheist or not. The only point that had been made is that IF she is, THEN that's just loads more hypocrisy.And IF she is, the question still remains why he'd have to help her empower terrorists... just because he's married? So he'd agree that their kids should be raised theists, just because they were married? Where is this line of convenience going to be drawn? Your argument is absurd on its face.What's funny is that YOU are the only one who brought his wife up. You are using her possibility of not being an atheist as an explanation for his behavior. Remember that was your defense against Sin? So YOU are the only one bringing up her theism or lack thereof, and your argument hitched to one or the other.As it is the 5 minute clip, showed that his wife was not the reason behind his cultural Xianity. Debunked!On your agreement with that amazing round of self-delusion. There was enough cognitive dissonance in that clip to power the London Underground for a week. His critic had been right... or logically consistent anyway.According to his rationalization it would make logical sense for example, that a Jew, feeling horribly oppressed by racists everywhere, railing against its existence and demanding that its delusional strains of thought be wiped out, would not be hypocritical for enjoying martial Nazi anthems, calling him or herself a "cultural Nazi" and saying Heil Hitler because the words are meaningless.There would be no hypocrisy in that? Pppppphhhhttt.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard