Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Even Dawkins does Christmas

It's the cultural prestige of religion that gives it access to power and buttresses its claim to spe

By Nelson Jones Published 13 December 2011 14:37

In his leader column for the New Statesman, Richard Dawkins makes a sharp distinction between religion as a cultural legacy -- as expressed in such cosy familiarities as Christmas carols and the King James Bible -- and religion as a living, and he would say pernicious, social force. The one, he thinks, is both traditional and "freely embraced by individuals". The other exercises "a real domination" over culture and politics.

Government, he maintains, "forces religion on society, in ways whose very familiarity disarms us" -- by which he means such things as bishops in Lords, the Charity Commission's assumption that religion is in the public interest, above all the inexorable spread of faith schools.

I can see where he's coming from. Indeed, I've written here before about the anomaly of a growing "faith school" sector in an increasingly non-believing society. And, like him, I can relate strongly to the cultural aspects of traditional Christianity without believing a word of it. Nevertheless, I think he's missing something significant.

The cultural prestige of religion -- in this country, this means especially Anglican Christianity -- is what gives it the access to power, what buttresses its claim to speak on behalf of morality, what causes politicians to want to embrace it in the first place. The bishops' seats in the House of Lords, which would appear to be safe from proposed reforms to the composition of the upper house, are a legacy of history just as Handel's Messiah or school nativity plays are legacies of history.

The Christian bits of Christmas are no less Christian because they are cosy and familiar. As soon as you wish someone a "Merry Christmas" you are inviting anyone from a doorstepping evangelist to a Thought for the Day contributor to remind you that the "true meaning of Christmas" centres around the birth, allegedly in Bethlehem, from an inviolate virgin of the Saviour of Mankind.

Dawkins wants to have his Christmas pudding and eat it, I'm afraid. He complains about the United States, where the constitution separates church and state, that "rival religions" have long fostered a "tiresome" avoidance of the C word (except, that is, in Bing Crosby's "secular carol" White Christmas, which the good professor rightly abominates).

But the US is also a country in which no presidential candidate could ever admit to being an atheist or even agnostic, where the equation of religious belief with personal morality is accepted almost without question, where (according to a recent study) atheists are considered less trustworthy than rapists.

The US might not have state-funded faith schools or bishops sitting ex officio in Congress, but religion is if anything even more deeply interwoven with culture over there than it is in Britain with its established church.

American politicians no less than British ones "believe in belief" -- nor is there the embarrassment factor that led Alastair Campbell to instruct Tony Blair not to "do God". If there's a difference (and of course there is) it's that while American politicians appear to believe in belief itself -- their own and other people's -- British politicians tend to confine themselves to stressing the social utility of religion.

Dawkins laments the "depressingly large number of intelligent and educated people", themselves perhaps non-believers, who "still vaguely presume without thinking about it that religious faith is somehow good for other people, good for society, good for public order, good for instilling morals, good for the common people."

There's nothing novel about such an assumption, of course. Politicians have been thinking along these lines since the days of the Roman Empire. As Edward Gibbon described the situation then, "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful."

Is the assumption in any way justified?

Dawkins is right to point out that religion makes a poor philosophical foundation for morality. Fear of eternal damnation, as he says, is a "contemptibly immoral motive for being moral". And in fact research suggests little difference between the basic moral intuitions of religious and non-religious people. (This is good news for believers, by the way, as it suggests that their moral behaviour is not, after all, the result of their fear of divine displeasure, but comes rather from the innate ethical sense they share with most normal human beings.)

Nevertheless, and even allowing for the peculiarities of particular creeds, religious teaching has tended to provide a good approximation of proper ethical reasoning -- good enough for the relationship between religion and morality to have become well-established over many centuries. Religion is not morality, but if its teachings had strayed too far from innate human moral sensibilities it's unlikely that it would have survived.

What we're seeing today, in fact, in issues such as gay rights or the role of women, is religion engaged in a game of moral catch-up with secular ethics. Only those that successfully adapt will have a secure long-term future. The process might almost be called Darwinian.

Equally Darwinian, of course, is the way in which religions have managed to inveigle themselves into people's ethnic and social identities in so obstinate a way that even as anti-religious a campaigner as Richard Dawkins, a man who believes fervently in disbelief, feels irrationally impelled to stand up and sing "O come all ye faithful".

Even he, it seems, has been infected by some version of the God meme.

Richard Dawkins guest-edit of New Statesman

To subscribe to the New Statesman or purchase this special issue, click here

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Richard Dawkins

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

25 comments

Tue, 2011-12-13 20:25 — THP (not verified)

"The Christian bits of Christmas are no less Christian because they are cosy and familiar. As soon as you wish someone a "Merry Christmas" you are inviting anyone from a doorstepping evangelist to a Thought for the Day contributor to remind you that the "true meaning of Christmas" centres around the birth, allegedly in Bethlehem, from an inviolate virgin of the Saviour of Mankind."

Here the author makes an error in my view. Christianity doesn't exist.
Atheists, technically speaking, thus do not celibrate Christmas. They celibrate friendship/family, art and life all it's pleasure, put in a winter-setting. The 'religionesque' part is just a dressing up so as to signal a belonging, facilitating the(group)identity.

Sun, 2011-12-18 12:16 — Hoogieflip (not verified)

'Britain with its established church'
Mr Jones, Britain does not have an established church.

Sat, 2011-12-17 00:38 — Bob (not verified)

Richard Dawkins is constantly vilified by the religionists as a "militant", "hardline" or "fundamentalist" atheist, whatever that means. Yet as soon as he displays his appreciation for the cultural aspects of how Europeans (NOT just Brits) celebrate this time of year, he is condemned from his left -- or wherever these people are -- as a "sellout" to the churches. I think Prof. Dawkins is old enough and wise enough to be fully aware of how his words will be abused by some believers and their leaders without any reminding. But why should he hide his thoughts just because of that? He is far from alone among atheists in his views on this -- former Astronomer Royal Martin Rees has voiced his appreciation of church choral music, and even the now sadly late Chris Hitchens was known to enjoy a bit of jollity and a sometimes carol-laden sing-song around this time of year.

Anyway, as they say in the particle physics community around here: Happy Higgsmass to All!

Wed, 2011-12-14 18:43 — Robert Taggart

Not sure about christmas... but crimbo - aye !
Best thing ? the eve thereof... mulled wine, Carols from Kings, mulled wine, midnight mass (unless it be catholic - = boring !), mulled wine...
Love it, CHEERS !

Sat, 2011-12-17 11:16 — Charlieboy (not verified)

In recent years, there have been louder cries of 'hypocrisy' from christians towards atheists who celebrate christmas. This all seems rather pathetic given we don't generally criticise those same christians for enjoying, for instance, Wednesdays (Wotan), Thursdays (Thor), and so on.

They also forget that the mid-winter festival pre-dates their oriental death-cult by a few thousand years. This is why, Oliver Cromwell - a fanatical christian - tried to ban the whole show.

Wassail!

Sat, 2011-12-17 12:57 — Robert Stovold (not verified)

There may be plenty of Christians out there whose goodness isn't motivated by the threat of eternal punishment (although no-one in the Bible taught more about Hell than Jesus). But to the extent that a tendency to do good is a is shared human value, the divisive term "Christian values" ought to be avoided.

Tue, 2011-12-13 15:20 — Ben (not verified)

"Dawkins is right to point out that religion makes a poor philosophical foundation for morality. Fear of eternal damnation, as he says, is a "contemptibly immoral motive for being moral"."

This straw man? Really? You can do better than that

Tue, 2011-12-13 15:58 — C Baker

I'm an atheist and absolute hater of christmas. The presents and cheap tat, too much food, etc.

Ironically, I quite like carols sung well and find the religious aspect, the least offensive. I'd rather be sent to church for a day, then have to do all the commercial christmas side.

I send cards to people that love christmas. Some of them are not a bit religious, but love baubles and parties, turkey and tinsel.

Christmas is a retail festival for most people. There is nothing sacred or relgious in their celebrations. The x factor brings many people together too, as does halloween.

Kids love easter eggs and chocolate. People love a good festival. Especially if it involves food, presents and a day off work.

Religion is not morality. People do good deeds, with or without religious purpose. Otherwise, we'd all be feeding the poor xmas day. Not stuffing our fat faces with commercial rubbish.

Fri, 2011-12-16 18:48 — Oozoid (not verified)

When I gaze upon the beauty of an ancient cathedral, I think not of the wonderful Christian legacy we have inherited but of the nameless slaves who suffered or died building such egotistical monstrosities. Religion must be exorcised from our minds, and philosophers and polemicists who cling to supernatural tradition are feeble and not worthy of our respect. As are atheist, skeptical, secularist and humanist organisations that cash in on the 'festive season'.

Thu, 2011-12-15 20:07 — J Unit CYP UK

I think there's a confusion of words. Evangelicals= Christians who focus on the gospel. Evangelists= Christian Evangelicals who WANT TO convert people.
You don't have to be an evangelist to be an evangelical. I'm an evangelical.

Thu, 2011-12-15 02:11 — Innes Mitchell (not verified)

I agree with Nelson Jones' discomfort at Richard Dawkins' religious nostalgia. It's fine to enjoy the Christian celebrations of his childhood but it's still a cultural affirmation of Christianity, no matter how he ratonalizes his enthusiasm. Dawkins alligns himself with Anglican England, even if only to mark the winter solstice. By so doing he exemplifies one of the reasons many good folk never question the status of the Church in British society. Like support for the monarchy, its about upholding a traditional English national identity. For Dawkins, his Anglicanism informs his English nationalism. Jones states that Dawkins "has been infected by some version of the God meme." Nostalgia for the England of his youth is fine, but Dawkins should be astute enough to realize his choice of celebrating a traditional English Christmas does constitute an endorsement of the cultural importance of Christianity in England. As a high profile religious critic, Dawkins' cue provides enough justification for many to remain wedded to their faith tradition.

Fri, 2011-12-16 19:01 — G. Tingey

Err "christmas" is nothing to do with christianity - as Oliver Cromwell well-knew (he banned it)

It's the Mid-winter festival re-packaged.
So we should enjoy it anyway.
Why not?
The days are getting longer!

Wed, 2011-12-14 12:06 — Reg Le Sueur (not verified)

Chris:
"Honestly, this is so lazy. Have you actually talked to any believing Christians? I cannot think of one-- who gets their moral compass from "fear of eternal damnation" or indeed who gets their faith from it".
Nevertheless, that is what it says in the Good Book, and what Jesus "taught" (or rather threatened).
If Christians do not adhere to this, then it shows, 1, that they cherry-pick what they want to believe in.
2, Christianity is evolving away from belief in eternal torment.

Thu, 2011-12-15 04:58 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Truth cannot be a religion. Truth about what? Leaves are green. Cats are furry. Chocolate is a boon to mankind. They play cricket at Lord's.

Sat, 2011-12-17 21:23 — Jeanne Rathbone (not verified)

Men invented religion - it is all male fantasy. Yet again we have an anglo/andro discussion about Anglican Christianity from CofE atheists and religionists defending their cosy, English public/grammar schooldays upbringing and nostalgia for the carols/nativity plays/santa/ christmas cards/Queen's speech bit of their cultural christianity.

The patron saint of atheists Dawkins is now joined by another public school educated elitist as Cameron appropriates morality as 'Christian values'. Soon they will be defending British colonisation and Anglicanism as a civilising influence on the world.

Tue, 2011-12-13 17:26 — Reg Le Sueur (not verified)

"as Richard Dawkins, a man who believes fervently in disbelief, feels irrationally impelled to stand up and sing "O come all ye faithful".

There is nothing irrational about it. I am Dawkins' age, and I was a Dawkinsesque atheist long before I ever heard of him, (and still am). I sing in two choral groups, and we also sing carols. I despise the words, and regard them as mostly "sick", but I enjoy the bonhomie, and the music itself; the words are merely padding to go with the music. They do not bother me much. I have neutralised them in my mind; they have no power over me.
Besides, it is better to "know the enemy", by associating with them,-up to a point.

Thu, 2011-12-15 10:02 — Darren (not verified)

As for Jones' comment about churches, "Only those that successfully adapt will secure a long-term future" - sheesh what an arrogant comment! He appears to say that "we here today are the generation of change - and if you don't change your message & your beliefs, you're finished!"
Nelson, from my study of history, the Christian church started 2000+ years ago from one and has grown to 100s of millions. I don't seem them disappearing any day soon. Don't just look at your elite enclave vfor statistics & "facts". As for gay rights (ie: marriage), it appears here in Australia that the Government are forcing it upon the people. Civil Union is a Government issue - marriage is a religious one. Does the gay lobby want religious marriage?
I think you tried to be impartial Nelson - but being unbiased is impossible.

Fri, 2011-12-16 20:47 — John Tate (not verified)

I plead guilty.

I guess, by enjoying 'The Archers', I am giving succour and credibility to those benighted individuals who believe 'The Archers' are real people.

Wed, 2011-12-14 15:07 — Keir

'Atheists, technically speaking'

Tue, 2011-12-13 18:13 — Chris (not verified)

"Dawkins is right to point out that religion makes a poor philosophical foundation for morality. Fear of eternal damnation, as he says, is a "contemptibly immoral motive for being moral"."
What Ben said...
Honestly, this is so lazy. Have you actually talked to any believing Christians? I cannot think of one (and I must have become close enough to hundreds by now) who gets their moral compass from "fear of eternal damnation" or indeed who gets their faith from it.
It amazes me that Dawkins (who is supposedly quite bright) goes down this route, unless of course he's just rabble rousing amoungst his atheist constituency...
Surely not!

Tue, 2011-12-13 18:35 — Steve (not verified)

@Chris. Evangelicals still emphasise hell and damnation when attempting to recruit new adherents so I assume these Christians still see these things as good for giving a person a lorra instant upstanding morality.

Thu, 2011-12-15 13:20 — I walker (not verified)

I think people understand historically christmas was a winter festival long before religion 'hi-jacked' it and have over time disassociated christmas from faith. The word christmas today places no emphasis on the words christ or mass. Words evolve constantly e.g. gay. Jesus christ, god are common swear words. Culture adapts and absorbs, it also changes, like churches into flats. No matter what is 'forced' onto people, people will take what they want, leave the rest and eventually change it to suit them. It does not mean that they are somehow affected in any way by the 'original' intent or symbolism. I can use the word holy without it having any religious overtone, its meaning has moved beyond the bible.
We can sing religious carols because we enjoy singing them, not because we adhere to their meaning. The sound of the music and the experience are what we respond to, something those who appreciate Wagner will testify to. In time who knows perhaps at christmas we'll only sing X Factor songs because they traditionally come out at this time of year!

Tue, 2011-12-13 19:38 — pig (not verified)

most of the above has unfortunately (or rather true to expectation) nought to do with "there is no religion higher than truth"...

""religion" or rather "churchianity" is for those who fear going to hell, spirituality is for those who have been there..."

there is but one LAW,
"do not do to another what you would not have another do to you",

all the rest is commentary...

"Be worthy of death; and so learn to live
That every incarnation of thy soul
In varied realms, and worlds, and firmaments
Shall be more pure and high."

"Freedom is necessary for perfection -freedom from
the causal chain of Necessity- freedom can only be acquired
by getting rid of this imagined, illusive substantiality, and all egotistic-
eudamonic self-happiness seeking."

Thu, 2011-12-15 13:24 — Jamie S Robertson (not verified)

@RegLeSueur

1) In the New Testament, good deeds are the result - not the mechanism - of salvation. (Galatians 2) Yes, moral works are important - as an outworking and proof of one's trust & faith in God. I'm a Christian, and I act morally not because I think I can earn my place in heaven (or some such) but because I'm thankful to God for reaching out to me and forgiving my faults.

2) Biblical depictions of hell (Daneil 12:2, Matt 8:12) are typical of shame and isolation from God, rather than little red devils with pitchforks - what else would you expect in an agonistic culture? Given that isolation from God is what is described as happening to folk who, er, reject God, talking about "eternal tormnt" rather misses the point.

Feel free to disagree with my viewpoint on theology - but at least back it up with some contextualised scripture!