Recently, Richard Dawkins has begun calling himself a "cultural Christian." He seems to be taking a view (similar to that of historian Tom Holland) that although Christianity itself is declining, society in Europe and America is the way it is because it evolved out of Christian culture. Good bad and indifferent, we are the way we are because of our society's Christian history.
I don't know how far Dawkins has thought this out. He has called Christianity ludicrous, which means that the basis of the culture he wants to defend is ludicrous. Is it possible to respect and defend a deracinated society when its foundation has been rejected?
It looks to me as though his new position is a reaction to growing Muslim influence in British life. He dislikes Christianity, but he dislikes Islam more. He feels warm and fuzzy when he hears the church bells of Oxford and sees the church spires, but recoils from the call of the muezzin.
I understand that he's barely relevant any more, but it would be interesting to hear him develop this idea.
I don't know how far Dawkins has thought this out. He has called Christianity ludicrous, which means that the basis of the culture he wants to defend is ludicrous. Is it possible to respect and defend a deracinated society when its foundation has been rejected?
It looks to me as though his new position is a reaction to growing Muslim influence in British life. He dislikes Christianity, but he dislikes Islam more. He feels warm and fuzzy when he hears the church bells of Oxford and sees the church spires, but recoils from the call of the muezzin.
I understand that he's barely relevant any more, but it would be interesting to hear him develop this idea.
