Richard Dawkins says Christianity is "fundamentally decent," but Islam "is not"
The atheist's comments continue an irresponsible pattern of demonizing one religion while celebrating the one he grew up with
This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
During an interview with the London-based radio station LBC on Easter Sunday, atheist Richard Dawkins was asked to chime in on Christianity’s “diminishing role in public life,” something he’s written and spoken about for years.
His response, predictably, was that he was thrilled that many people were ditching their religious beliefs—and I would agree with that—before going in another direction and lamenting the fact that Islam still exists and is, in some cases, growing.
… Well, I must say I was slightly horrified to hear that Ramadan is being promoted instead. I do think that we—we are culturally a Christian country… I call myself a cultural Christian. I'm not a believer, but there's a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian… You know, I love hymns and Christmas carols and… I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.
It’s truth that, statistically, the number of people who actually believe in Christianity is going down, and I'm happy with that, but I would not be happy if, for example, we lost all our cathedrals and our beautiful parish churches… I think it would matter if we… substituted any alternative religion, that would be truly dreadful.
That answer isn’t out of character for Dawkins, who has been saying this sort of thing for decades. (That article is from 2007!) It’s not even unusual! He has a soft spot for churches and religious music. I suspect plenty of former Christians agree with him.
Still, pay attention to how he carves out space for Christianity in a cultural sense, because that’s where he takes a bizarre turn. I don’t know if I’m picking up on it now because of what’s happening in the U.S. or the fact that my views on Dawkins have shifted ever since he decided go down the anti-transgender rabbit hole, but his comments just rub me the wrong way.
After all, what is Christian Nationalism but another way to force “cultural” Christianity (as practiced by one dominant group of conservatives) on everyone else without any real regard for Jesus or God? By suggesting that cultural Christianity is okay and that the U.K. is a “Christian country in that sense,” it’s giving unearned credibility to the misguided belief that the U.S., too, is built on a foundation of Christianity, therefore our laws should reflect that. In America, it’s never really about God’s Will so much as political desire. And there are always Bible verses to back up your goals.
The LBC host, Rachel Johnson, then asked Dawkins to comment on the fact that church attendance is dropping but there are “6,000 [mosques] across Europe… under construction and there are many more… being planned.” It’s not clear where she’s getting that information from. The right-wing Daily Mail recently said there were 6,000 mosques in Europe and more under construction, which, if true, means Johnson completely misstated the numbers in order to suggest a much higher rate of growth. (Just for the sake of comparison, there are an estimated 17,000 Catholic parishes across the United States.)
More importantly, though, that Daily Mail article, with an intentionally scary headline reading, “How Ramadan is muscling out Easter all over Europe,” simply noted that more Muslims across Europe were celebrating Ramadan and government officials were also honoring the holiday.
It’s not a bad thing for any government to honor that kind of diversity. In London’s Leicester Square, 30,000 lights were switched on to celebrate Ramadan and Eid. Mayor Sadiq Khan helped launch the festivities. Windsor Castle hosted a Ramadan event. Those kinds of events are hardly examples of Muslims taking over anything but rather an acknowledgment that they’re part of the fabric of society. (Government officials in the U.S. routinely acknowledge important holidays of different religions.)
But right on cue, Dawkins dismissed all that and offered the worst possible response (even after saying he needed to “choose [his] words carefully”):
… If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I’d choose Christianity every single time. I mean, it seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.
Christianity is “fundamentally decent.” Islam is not. God is a delusion, but some gods are more delusional than others, I guess.
Why is one better than the other? Because he’s used to the former. His familiarity with Christianity allows him to cling to certain elements of the religion and declare them good, but when other people in other religions do the exact same thing, there’s something wrong. As social scientist Samuel Perry wrote on X/Twitter, it’s not “about beliefs, but ethno-nationalism.”
It’s not the first time Dawkins has done this, elevating something religious he grew up with while simultaneously trashing Islam (for something entirely different). Who can forget this classic tweet?
(That Islamic phrase is innocuous on its own and millions of Muslims say it every day. But Dawkins, as he often does, was equating all Muslims with the actions of religious extremists.)
It’s one thing to say all religions are untrue. (I agree!) It also makes sense to call out extremists who profess a particular religion as harmful in their unique ways. (I agree!) But in the U.S., red states run by conservative Christians who want to impose their religion on us are a literal threat to the health and safety of women and LGBTQ people. Hell, their obsession with guns makes them a threat to everyone’s well-being. There’s nothing “fundamentally decent” about it. It’s also true that extremists invoking Islam have committed many acts of terror. It’s also true that there are countless believers who condemn those acts, believe their faith is being twisted by zealots, and support religious freedom. It’s irresponsible to pretend all believers are identical. Dawkins is willing to treat Christianity with nuance in a way he never extends to other religions.
Those peaceful believers deserve respect. They’re finally getting some, in important (albeit symbolic) ways. Yet that’s what Dawkins is railing against. He thinks honoring Islam in a ceremonial way, just as the same groups do with Christianity and Judaism and other major religions, is somehow a mistake… but celebrating aspects of Christianity is not just okay, but welcome.
Dawkins went on to say Islamic texts are hostile to women and gays, which could be a fair point… except that argument isn’t convincing when the thing he’s ultimately complaining about is a harmless celebration of Ramadan and when Christianity has been cited to oppress both groups.
He went on to say that, yes, Christianity is a threat in the U.S. when it comes to science education and abortion rights. But he added that in a place like Africa, where “you have missionaries of both faiths operating,” he declared himself on the side of “Team Christian.” Which is just a weird thing to say given the very real harm Christian missionaries in Africa have inflicted upon the very people they claimed to help.
Dawkins can’t see the flaw in what he’s saying. He believes certain non-supernatural elements of Christianity deserve respect because they’re meaningful to him personally, but he won’t extend the same olive branch to people who grew up in other faiths. At least the ones he’s not familiar with. This isn’t about belief. This is about believers. He doesn’t afford them the respect he thinks they ought to give him.
At a time when peaceful Muslims are demonized in both countries by people who equate them with zealots, Dawkins comments are simply adding fuel to the fire.
"Why is one better than the other? Because he’s used to the former."
Exactly. Simple cultural bias. I have it too - I likes me a big stone cathedral. Organ music in a church is more pleasant to my ears than the adhan. But I'll also admit that that's just how I was raised. It's subjective - beauty in the eye of the beholder - nothing more. Though the Great Mosque in Cordoba certainly deserves a spot up there with Notre Dame and other similar architectural wonders.
As for fundamental decency, Christianity is 600 years older than Islam and has had a very different historical evolution. For sure, as of 2024 French Catholics aren't nearly as religiously bloodthirsty as the Afghanistan Taliban. But 600 years ago, those French Catholics were pretty damn bloodthirsty. And they are not bloodthirsty today arguably because of the enlightenment, because of greater material prosperity, because of changes in government structures historically related to the formation of the Republic. Not because of theological differences. Or at least, not primarily because of theological differences. Islam in the right socio-, politico-, and historical context is just as peaceful as Christianity. How do we know this to be true? Because in terms of obeying the law, US muslims act a lot like US Catholics who act a lot like US nones. And the same is true in many other countries. The biggest difference in behavior is between 0th/1st generation immigrants and pepole who have been in that area for several generations.
So no Richard, I disagree with the claim that Christianity is more fundamentally decent. Observationally, 21st Century, first world, Western Democracy Christianity may be more aligned with Western cultural norms and western notions of civil and human rights than Mideast, third world, Theocratic Authoritarian Islam. But the explanation for that difference resides much more in the "Democracy" vs. "Theocratic Authoritarian" and the "first world" vs. "third world," than it does in the "Christianity" vs. "Islam."
Fundamentally decent? Christianity? Has Dawkins read the bible? Is he not a student of actual history?
For a guy who came up with a spot-on description of the biblical deity (which was added onto by Dan Barker), this seems like a large step backwards.