Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Let me chime in with my complete agreement with PZ and Greg Laden over the subject of unbelievers, even outspoken atheists, celebrating and enjoying Christmas. They both mention Richard Dawkins' recent statement that he enjoys Christmas and sings carols and the like, and Albert Mohler's ridiculous reaction to those statements. It's all quite absurd. As PZ points out, a non-Christian can enjoy Christmas just like a non-Christian can enjoy Christian music.
My old French teacher in high school was an agnostic, yet he played the organ every Sunday for a Catholic Church in town. Why? Because he loved the music and the ritual of it all. This seems odd only to those, like Mohler, who appear to be incapable of thinking only in the most literal manner at all times. To the rest of us, this makes perfect sense.
PZ mentions Stephen Jay Gould being in many choirs that performed Handel's Messiah and that is a perfect example. It's a beautiful piece of music quite apart from whether one believes in the ideas in it. The only reason Mohler thinks that an atheist can't love a piece of art or music without regard to the ideas of the person behind it is because people like him are incapable of making such a separation; everything, even beauty, is to be subordinated to ideology. And they accuse us of bleeding life of its meaning!
I don't go to church, but I love churches (architecturally, that is). I cannot listen to the Ave Maria performed well without being moved to tears. I say Merry Christmas to people every day during this time of year and it has nothing to do with Christianity. PZ is right when he says that Mohler's attitude reflects a lack of imagination; he simply cannot imagine anyone not being as simpleminded as he clearly is.
Comments
Re Stephen Jay Gould
I seem to recall that in one of his articles, he describes his participation in performances of Haydns' oratorio, "The Creation," despite the fact that he, of course, in no sense believed in the fables of Genesis 1. He further commented on Haydns' use of Genesis 1 as a basis for the libretto, rather then Genesis 2, relative to the former having humans created last as opposed to the latters' having humans created first.
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2007 9:38 AM
I agree - Mohler's thinking is so black and white: if you don't subcribe to everything in a work of art and its ideas literally and completely, you must reject it completely.
By that standard, who needs gigabytes of space on their mp3 player?
But, I suppose, the act of enjoying something at all is somehow sinful to these people, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised if they think we shouldn't say a friendly "Merry Christmas" without being Xian (TM)...
Posted by: Thinker | December 19, 2007 9:57 AM
When I was a kid, my dear old mum, now no longer with us, sang at church every Sunday, without believing a single thing about Christianity or any other religion. She loved to SING. And she liked the $15 dollars she got paid as a soloist. That fifteen bucks bought us some fresh fish, or a nice roast beef for Sunday supper. I guess she was a hypocrite, and evil. (Oh, and my dad and I went bowling while she was at church. We were holy rollers. ha.)
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | December 19, 2007 10:13 AM
I understand both sides of the discussion. On one side are people who have cultural ties to the celebration of Christmas and yet have no religious ties to the holiday. On the other side are Christians who are cognizant of historical facts. Early Christians coopted pagan holidays by saying that those celebrations had nothing more to do with pagan gods. This is similar to those who say that the celebration of Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus.
Posted by: Mike | December 19, 2007 10:17 AM
Great Christian music has not only been enjoyed and sung by non-believers, it's been composed by non-believers. Beethoven, Berlioz, Bernstein, all wrote Masses though none was a Christian. (And I haven't even checked the C's.)
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | December 19, 2007 10:21 AM
Presumably Mohler wouldn't be so hypocritical as to condemn atheism while enjoying the benefits of scientific advances developed by atheists.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 19, 2007 10:30 AM
Of course atheists can celebrate Christmas. It's become so much more of an American holiday than a Christian holiday nowadays. However, you cannot deny that Christmas was brought to America because of Christianity. If you celebrate Christmas, then some mid-19th-century Christians have done you a favor. (And yes, I'm aware of the pagan roots of the holiday, but that has nothing to do with modern day America.)
What gets to me is that PZ Myers appears to genuinely hate Christianity. It seems to me that, by celebrating Christmas, he's biting the hand that feeds him. PZ Myers is enjoying something that was produced by Christians believing Christian things, while he has stated in the past that nothing good has ever come out of belief.
Not that I personally care what some guy on the Internet does in his free time. It just triggers the same reaction in me as when an idiot living off our tax dollars says he hates America.
Posted by: Brandon | December 19, 2007 10:36 AM
I'm not a big Al Mohler fan--but I don't find his article to be "ridiculous". I read it as simply pointing out that it is rather peculiar that Dawkins should enjoy Christmas carols--especially if he enjoys those of with an explicit Christian content. I agree. While I might appreciate the musicality of any song, there are many I would not sing simply because the lyrics are so counter to my world view; I would not sing them just because "I like to sing." Songs with misogynistic themes come to mind. I have to think that Dawkins singing "Joy to the world, the Lord is come"(*) is somewhat analogous to me singing a tribute to Mohamed. I wouldn't do it no matter how catchy the tune. Like Al Mohler, I find it at least borderline odd that Dawkins would. Admittedly the analogy is not perfect, for as Dawkins points out there is national tradition involved. But I think Mohler's point is reasonable enough that it doesn't qualify as "ridiculous." Now if Dawkins is singling Jingle Bells, that's a whole-nother matter.
(*) Although that particular song is not really a Christmas song--the advent it celebrates is the second advent. It is a postmillennial hymn.
Thinker,
Who are "these people" for whom the act of enjoying something at all is somehow sinful? I never met such a person.
Posted by: heddle | December 19, 2007 10:44 AM
Well clearly, you've never met a colonial age Puritan.
Posted by: Brandon | December 19, 2007 10:52 AM
Was your French teacher gay? Gay people (at least some) love the theater of the services. The flowing robes. The burning purses. The sets.
BTW, I'm gay, and I used to love "turning pages" for the organist at an Episcopal church in Connecticut (I could then read music, not now).
Posted by: raj | December 19, 2007 10:53 AM
Brandon wrote:
I think you misunderstand his position. Neither PZ nor any other atheist would seriously argue that nothing valuable has ever been done in the name of religion, or to promote a religion, or come from a religion. Religions reflect the human concerns and aspirations from which they grew.
But what a nonbeliever can recognize as valuable is whatever has secular worth -- it's beautiful or wise or profound according to broad, general standards which aren't limited to any particular faith or even to having faith itself. And that's where PZ's critique is aimed: faith itself.
Everything good in religion stands on its own merits. The rest is pseudoscience and bad habits of thought, and if they lead to bad things from otherwise good people, then there's your problem.
You may disagree, of course, but I don't think the position is inconsistent.
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2007 11:00 AM
"Who are "these people" for whom the act of enjoying something at all is somehow sinful? I never met such a person."
I have known several people who found other people enjoying things sinful and who never seemed to enjoy things themselves. I never understoond why, but it was the case.
Posted by: jba | December 19, 2007 11:02 AM
I take it that Albert Mohler likewise does not like or appreciate ancient Greek and Roman art, Egyptian pyramids, classical mythology, or Halloween? Actually, it would not surprise me if he did not. The word "Philistine" comes to mind.
Crabby Christmas, Mullah Mohler, and a grouchy new year to you. May you succeed in your lonely curmugeon quest to find plenty of other harmless things to be sad about, while everyone else is having fun without you.
Posted by: Kristine | December 19, 2007 11:06 AM
Re Heddle
How about Stephen Jay Gould singing in performances of "The Creation?" Gould, who was an atheist, totally rejected the narrative in Genesis 1. Was he being a hypocrite?
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2007 11:59 AM
No matter how much some people may not like this, but Christmas is as much a secular holiday as a religious one. A friend of mine grew up Hindu. Her parents, recent immigrants from India, watched in amusement as every December she would decorate a Christmas tree with the lovely gold bangles and jewelry from India and plan gifts for the whole family. For them, Christmas was an American holiday, and one they could enjoy because it is about celebrating family and friends. The religious part, for many, is unimportant.
Posted by: Sarah | December 19, 2007 12:02 PM
I used to like those T.V. commercials the Mormons put out. Doesn't mean I still don't think their faith is somewhat whacky. I also like the Parthenon on the Acropolis...doesn't mean I'm about to bow down to Athena, or whatever it was they did. Islamic art is fabulous...don't mean I'm checking my compass to determine which way is east. And how beautiful are the Cathedrals of Rhiems or Paris or Cologne or Rome? Very, but I'm not ready to put the Pope on my speed dial.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 19, 2007 12:11 PM
SLC,
Of course not. It is not a question of being a hypocrite. I certainly did not call Dawkins a hypocrite. (Did Mohler? I don't feel like rereading his article.) In principle I understand how you can sing about something you don't really believe. I certainly enjoyed singing about, say, John Henry and his hammer. No, it is not about being a hypocrite--it is about being peculiar. Given Dawkins's prominent role as a spokesman for atheism, I do indeed find it at least a little odd that he enjoys singing songs about the birth of a savior who is worthy to be worshipped as god. Nothing more than that. I find it odd, not hypocritical. As I said, I wouldn't be inclined to sing songs celebrating the divine prophetic gifts of Mohamed or Joseph Smith, and would consider any Christian who does to be a bit odd. In that sense I agree with Mohler.
Posted by: heddle | December 19, 2007 12:23 PM
I'm with Sarah, for me Christmas had nothing to do with Christianity, it was all about candy canes, christmas trees, presents, turkey, santa claus and Rudolph the red nosed reindeer. That our family went to midnight mass seemed like a strange religious intrusion on the greatest (secular) holiday of the year.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | December 19, 2007 12:30 PM
It's only odd if you think that a "spokesman for atheism" (whatever that is) should consider everything that religion touches to be horrible and wrong...and I don't know why a person would think that. Nor should it be surprising, to anyone who has read Dawkins before.
I would, if they were pretty songs, and/or fun to sing. Why not? I don't feel that my heart has to be broken in order to sing songs about breakups, or that I have to be in love to sing a love song, or drinking to sing a drinking song....
Posted by: Gretchen | December 19, 2007 12:30 PM
When I was little, I had a theory that it wasn't really a lie if you were singing at the time. After all, lots of songs tell stories that didn't really happen, or express love to people who dont really exist.
Even to this day, despite preferring skinny ladies, I have been known to sing "I like big butts and I cannot lie". It's a fun tune, and I dont see a difference between it and a hymn.
Posted by: Donalbain | December 19, 2007 12:42 PM
Heddle,
I think one key difference is that most religions' believers are forbidden by their religion from participating in other religion's rituals, ceremonies, etc; atheists are under no such proscription. If I sing Joy to the World, including 'the Lord is come', it's not going to phase me any more than 'oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh', which I don't particularly think would actually be that much fun. I can understand why you might find it odd, but I don't know why you would think that atheists would adopt this narrow attitude toward other beliefs that many Christians, for example, do.
Posted by: Dave L | December 19, 2007 12:49 PM
raj wrote:
He was not, actually, though almost everyone who didn't know him well thought he was. He wore flesh-colored makeup on his face, and of course he taught French, so most of the idiots in our town assumed he was gay. In fact, the makeup was to cover up discoloration resulting from skin cancer.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 19, 2007 1:19 PM
I sang my grandson not quite to sleep the other night with a Christmas carol (and his little Atheistic reaction was a sleepy yawn and "that's a pretty song, Grammy") but I confess it was my favorite -- "Silver Bells" -- and has been my favorite since I was in my teens.
I don't get too much into the religious ones any more. They've mostly lost their flavor for me but no one performs "Silver Bells" (or most American folk music either for that matter) like Burl Ives and on my Christmas album of his is another one, "Please Send Some Snow for Johnny", about a Southern boy wishing for snow on Xmas that is a downright prayer to God for said snow, which, of course, miraculously appears. It's is hokey and cute as hell and I love it. I followed "Silver Bells" with that one and my grandson was asleep by its end probably dreaming of building his own snowman.
Sometimes lyrics put me off -- I loved Sting's "I'll be Watching You" until I really listened to the lyrics and got really creeped out. (I now call it "the stalker song".) And sometimes, you got to love it anyhow. There's no accounting for taste and no explaining why some push me too far with their words no matter how pretty the music and some don't seem to.
And, of course, music, like a painting, you don't need to justify liking even when it expresses a worldview entirely different from your own. Art is art and is just an expression of the producer of the art. This is what makes Dawkins right and Mohler wrong, of course. We should all be able to appreciate and respect the worldviews of others and not deny it when we find the expression of it beautiful.
Posted by: Donna | December 19, 2007 1:27 PM
What is the evidence that SJ Gould was an atheist? It may well be true, but I know him as a practicing Jew. (He ate Kosher during the holidays and around sabbath, for example) One can easily be both, of course, many people are.
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 19, 2007 1:30 PM
Yet another reason many of us celebrate Christmas -- regardless of our own beliefs, it happens to be the time when we and our friends and families have time off from work, thus allowing us to reunite and enjoy our time together (it's when I have enough time off to fly across the country to see everyone). To me, that is the meaning of Christmas, and is why I celebrate.
Posted by: Davis | December 19, 2007 3:45 PM
Donna - Slightly off-topic, but the song is "Every Breath You Take," it's by The Police (not Sting solo), and I think the creepy stalker aspect is its point. I read an interview with Sting somewhere where he commented that he thinks most people don't really listen to the lyric (singular - a song has a lyric, not lyrics) and think they're humming along to a conventional love song, not something darker, as it was intended. That's one reason I love it - its disturbing ambiguity is intentional but subtle, cleverly subverting love-song cliches about "belonging" and obsession. So listen without guilt, though maybe also without the same simple pleasure you once took in it.
Sorry for the pedantic de-rail, but I had to defend one of the greatest pop songs ever.
And I am another raging atheist who loves Christmas carols, *especially* old religious ones. I also love Tolkien, and I don't believe in Iluvatar or Sauron.
Posted by: MPW | December 19, 2007 4:38 PM
Donna -
I suppose it must be the fact that I'm a singer, but it usually only takes one listen for me to pick up on lyrical content. I'll be Watching You was obviously a stalker song, the first time I heard it. I think more amusing was the cover my old band did of Blister in the Sun, specifically because we had a kick ass bass player who wanted to do something with a good bass line. He was fine with it for months, until a friend mentioned how excited she was that we did the masturbation song. He threatened to quit the band if we didn't stop doing that one.
I used to find it amusing when people who listened to our music, assumed that I was an atheist, simply because I was all about questioning faith and religion. They just totally missed the underlying religious themes that pervaded many of our songs. It was really amusing when one of our regular followers was smoking a joint with me and the subject of religion came up. He simply couldn't wrap his head around the notion that I was a Christian.
I do find it rather amusing that people just assume that atheists wouldn't celebrate Christmas.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 19, 2007 5:08 PM
Heddle, it's not odd at all to treat myth as enjoyable or useful cultural artifact. TV shows, movies, and even cartoons still incorporate myths from the Greeks, Romans, and Norse. People still dance around maypoles, and Christians -- at least those who aren't too worried about contamination from pagan tradition -- willingly put up Christmas trees and hang mistletoe. All this seems strange only once one starts treating some of it as something other than myth. It is no more strange that Dawkins would enjoy Christmas carols than that you or I might enjoy the scene where Hamlet speaks to his father's shade. I believe in neither ghosts nor gods, but would not remove their depiction from stage, film, and song.
Posted by: Russell | December 19, 2007 5:12 PM
I sing "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" "Santa Claus is coming to town" and "Here comes Peter Cottontail" but I don't believe in Santa Claus, Rudolph, or Peter Cottontail, so I guess it's really hard to imagine myself doing that.
Posted by: Deus | December 19, 2007 5:13 PM
Do you like churches? Christmas? Like Christian music and ethics? Consider yourself a cultural Christian, but not a creedal Christian? Try Unitarianism. No beliefs necessary.
Posted by: Chuck | December 19, 2007 5:29 PM
By the way, the ideological mindset that would have us erase all references to our Christian heritage or have us, alternatively, adopt the basest Christian theology and beliefs is a totalitarian mindset. Ideology, in my opinion, leads unavoidably to tyranny. The whole point of an ideology is that it is a system of thought that governs every political and philosophical conclusion possible. Totalitarianism is its child, and it ought to be forgotten by intelligent thought and discourse.
Posted by: Chuck | December 19, 2007 5:35 PM
I would argue with Brandon's comment that "you cannot deny that Christmas was brought to America because of Christianity." It was actually the Victorians who continued the codification of modern celebrations of Christmas. Prior to the famous "The Night Before Christmas" poem it was mostly a roudy drink-fest and only became the family holiday we know and love today after the creation of the Santa Claus character.
Posted by: ildi | December 19, 2007 5:57 PM
"The ideological mindset that would have us erase all references to our Christian heritage," that so worries Chuck, seems to me mostly the fearful fantasy of those Christians who are themselves so stuck in the ideological mode that they think secular folks must likewise be. And thus they are surprised to find someone like Dawkins enjoying Christmas carols.
Posted by: Russell | December 19, 2007 5:59 PM
Kurisumasu is the Japanese celebration of love and rampant consumerism. What could be wrong with celebrating that?
And incidentally, Newton was born on December 25th...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 19, 2007 6:18 PM
Greg Laden: "What is the evidence that SJ Gould was an atheist?"
Actually, in his article on NOMA, he offhandedly describes himself as a Jewish agnostic.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 19, 2007 6:21 PM
Russell,
I don't buy that. Dawkins does not, I suspect, treat all "myths" equally. I believe he would argue that the most important "myths" of our era are those of the three monotheistic religions. Singing a song about Thor or Santa is not singing a song about a god that millions of people believe in, including those in the seat of power in many places. I think it is way too trivial to argue that singing about Jesus is the same as singing about, say Zeus; it ignores the relative weight and importance of present day Jesus believers vs. Zeus believers.
Dawkins, I suspect, is simply not overly concerned about Zeus believers. In that case singing a song about Zeus carries no special significance. He is concerned about Christians, Jews, and Moslems and the power and influence they command, such as it is. That is the point that Mohler is trying to make, I think: that Dawkins singing the doctrines of the people whom he, on some level, opposes is just a bit odd.
As I said, I agree.
If someone wrote a Grammy-quality gangsta rap about bitches and hoes, I wouldn't sing it no matter how good it was.
Perhaps a fairer analogy would be this: it would be odd for a soldier on one side of a war to enjoy singing the patriotic songs of his opponents. Not certifiably committable odd, but odd. In my opinion.
People seem to think that Mohler is arguing that singing about something you don't believe in is odd. I don't think so. I think he is arguing that singing the songs of a group you, at some level, passionately oppose is odd.
Posted by: heddle | December 19, 2007 6:32 PM
"How about Stephen Jay Gould singing in performances of "The Creation?" Gould, who was an atheist, totally rejected the narrative in Genesis 1. Was he being a hypocrite?"
If he were to appear in a stage version of Peter Pan while totally rejecting the existence of fairies, would that make him a hypocrite?
There's a Hebrew word, I think it's "Midrash" but may be wrong. Essentially Midrash is all the stories and parables which have accreted around the basic text of the Torah.
Even observant Jews don't believe Midrash to be literally true, but they can be funny or entertaining or make worthwhile moral or philosophical points.
I regard pretty much all religious texts as Midrash (although I have to strive mightily to find anything of value in the writings of the Hari Krishas or Scientologists).
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 19, 2007 7:17 PM
Heddle writes:
Once one allows that community of believers to limit how you would use those myths, you are giving them far more power than they deserve. I supported the cartoonists who drew Mohamed, because he is no more beyond cartoon depiction than any other historical man. I laughed at the South Park episodes that included Jesus and Satan, and it is precisely because of their community of believers that these myths were included as they were in that satire. I'm happy also to see these icons used in more prosaic fashion, and for Dawkins to sing Christmas carols. Treating myth as myth neither strengthens belief in it nor empowers those who believe it. It is those believers who want the reference to that myth treated in some special fashion.
That also is where your analogy to war fails. Atheists are not at war with Christians. We have no desire to see them hurt, or to make them second-class citizens, or to remove their freedom to believe as they would. On an individual level, we would persuade them to think a bit more, and on a social level, we simply want to deshrine the place of the Christian mythology in our political landscape.
Posted by: Russell | December 19, 2007 7:47 PM
I don't really know about Gould's religion, but I just wanted to say that it's hard to break patterns you've been following since birth. I was raised Jewish and we kept kosher: no seafood, no meat & milk, no pork. Even though I'm an atheist now and have no reason to follow these rules, I still have an aversion to eating any of these. It's really hard to shake off.
Posted by: Skemono | December 19, 2007 8:17 PM
I guess the thing for me is that so long as you're not being actually profane, there's nothing wrong with participating in someone else's festival. I've celebrated Lunar New Year and the end of Ramadan.
The qualification on profanity is important. I have a real problem in participating in a festival while disrespecting it. If you want to disrespect it, don't participate.
Posted by: Pseudonym | December 19, 2007 8:21 PM
This is just another species of the typical authoritarian inability to distinguish depiction from advocacy.
Posted by: PhysioProf | December 19, 2007 9:23 PM
Dawkins tone is so strident in his tone that any subtleties in his arguements get lost in the shuffle. If Dawkins believes that religion has some redeeming qualities (such as good music) then he needs to moderate his tone.
Posted by: Cheddar | December 19, 2007 9:58 PM
Prior to the famous "The Night Before Christmas" poem it was mostly a roudy drink-fest
LOL...from the descriptions of old-fashioned Christmas pudding I've read, even the desserts were alcohol-saturated. I'd need a good drinkfest before I could be persuaded to eat one of the porcine-muscles-of-facial-expression tamales that are traditional around here at Xmas.
How can self-proclaimed devout Christians complain about the "War on Christmas" in one breath, and then howl about an atheist's participation in some Christmas ritual in the next? If they want a sincerity test for True Belief before Christmas carols can be sung, or Christmas angels hung, or Christmas twinkle lights strung, or Christmas tinsel flung, then they can expect a lot of failures from their own flocks. You'd think they'd just be glad that Dawkins isn't grinching and bah-humbugging, this holiday season.
Similarly, it's a bit weird to whinge and moan loudly about the cultural dominance of Christian tradition all year, and then snuggle up to the 800-lb gorilla in the Santa hat at Christmas. If you resent Christianity, or call yourself an atheist, then why not just ignore and/or remove yourself from the celebrations, caroling, mall decorations, and rampant materialism? It seems lame to put up a tree, or a pole, or a wreath, and call the holiday something else, since you're still buying into the commercialism and false sentiments.
Dawkins was quoted as saying:
I loathe the annual orgy of waste and reckless reciprocal spending.
If that's what you dislike most about the Christmas season, then it's easy enough to "just say no" to the objectionable bits, without necessarily disappointing others to whom Christmas means something positive.
Posted by: Barn Owl | December 19, 2007 10:01 PM
If someone wrote a Grammy-quality gangsta rap about bitches and hoes, I wouldn't sing it no matter how good it was.
You should listen to Ben Folds' cover of 'Bitches ain't shit'. It's a piece of highly misogynist rap done in the style of a love song. It's quite pretty, and it's thought provoking, just because you can't ignore the words.
I'm surprised no one has brought up Bach, most of whose output was clearly religious. Are atheists supposed to abjure the St. Matthew's Passion or the cantatas? And to a perhaps greater extent, there was the controversy about Wagner being played in Israel, where there was a clear association of the composer with genocide and the most virulent antisemitism. But the music is just music.
It's not entirely a matter of atheists listening to religious Christmas music, though. One of the most frequently played pieces of 'holiday' music is the Troika from Lieutenant Kije, written by the atheist Prokofiev for a Bolshevik movie satirizing a Christian regime.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 19, 2007 10:04 PM
I spent 2 years in Japan where "kurismasu" is party time. They serve "kurismasu keeki" (decorated like a birthday cake for triplets born on Dec 25) and go out drinking with friends. But it's not a holiday, so I had to go to work on christmas day.
New years, on the other hand, is very much a time for family and close friends. Most everything closes down for 3 days. At midnight you go to the shrine and ring the bell. Not religious. Tradition.
Posted by: Gerry L | December 19, 2007 10:46 PM
Or, possibly, certain of his readers need to pay closer attention to his tone.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 19, 2007 11:30 PM
Gretchen...perhaps Dawkins needs to be more devout in his aethism. He needs to walk the talk. This whole business of liking Christmas carols smacks of the type of lukewarm aethism that gives comfort to the relgious hordes.
Posted by: Cheddar | December 20, 2007 12:06 AM
I guess people keep forgetting this...but the birth of Jesus is actually celebrated in conjunction with an ancient pagan holiday, saluting the coming of the winter solstice, and the coming of brighter days. This 'cause dear Jesus was born in the Northern hemisphere, if you get my point.
That can also give you an idea why seeing so many lights, singing, spending time with friends & family, and even partying, at this time of the year, can have such a strong meaning for atheists (and pagans, I guess) as much as it has for Christians of all colors.
Anyway, just a humble comment of mine...
Posted by: steppen wolf | December 20, 2007 12:59 AM
Ah, yes, nothing says "time with friends and family" like a good ol' Brumalian midwinter goat sacrifice.
Almost every (if not every) northern hemisphere pagan tradition had winter solstice celebrations. However, whatever the celebrations were called-Midvinterblót, Perchta, Sol Invictus Festival, Jul, Wiccan Yule-they were certainly not godless. It would have benefited unbelievers in the gods and spirits to feign piety at midwinter...who wants to be left out in the cold, away from the bonfires and food?
Posted by: Barn Owl | December 20, 2007 7:42 AM
Why in hell should he tone down his tone? More devout is his atheism? WTF!!!??? Hello? Atheism is not a religion.
As for Atheists celebrating Christmas, I tend to say happy winter and me and my family treat it more as a celebration of winter and the things there are to like and appreciate about winter. Yes, there are good things about winter and pagan or not many of the traditional symbols (evergreens, snow, stars, fireplaces) depict them. Probably because it is the winter solstice celebrated.
Snow is beautiful and can be fun, as in the snowmen and sleds that abound in images of Christmas. Evergreens too are beautiful even untrimmed but, hence, the urge to decorate with them and adorn them. And don't the stars look even clearer and more beautiful in a crisp, clear winter night sky?
Home and hearth seem even more welcome and gifts are nothing more really than a token of appreciation of the people you give them too. That's why it's the thought that counts. Nothing like the harshness of winter to point out the comfort of loved ones and there's something to be said for pulling together and helping make life good for one another that has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Posted by: Donna | December 20, 2007 8:12 AM
Re Heddle
Apparently, Prof. Heddle has never troubled to read any of Prof. Dawkins' books. If he had, he would be rather surprised to find out the following information.
1. Dawkins is in favor of secondary schools offering courses on religion because knowledge of religion is, in his opinion, required to fully appreciate much of English and Continental literature.
2. Dawkins freely admits the contribution of religion to much of Western music. He freely admits to enjoying such works as Handels' Messiah, Bachs' Christmas Oratorio, among other such compositions.
Posted by: SLC | December 20, 2007 8:29 AM
Cheddar writes, "This whole business of liking Christmas carols smacks of the type of lukewarm atheism that gives comfort to the religious hordes."
Yet it discomfits Albert Mohler, chief Southern Baptist, whose dyspeptic complaint about this was the news to which everyone has been reacting.
I don't think atheists most atheists plot their every move with regard to whether it comforts or upsets the religious hordes. Nor should they. As I pointed above, we are not at war with Christians or any other religious group. If there is one thing I, as an atheist, want the religious to do, it is to think more honestly. Encouraging that is a bit more subtle than simply opposing anything and everything that is tinged with religion.
Posted by: Russell | December 20, 2007 8:59 AM
So, does Dawkins think religion has contributed enough to culture, and he wants to deprive people 300 years in the future of faith-inspired music? (except what we already have, of course) Or does he feel that religion's cultural benefits outweigh its costs, even for moderates?
See, we moderates have the best of all worlds. We have the inspiration to possibly write the next Handel's Messiah, but without contributing to international terrorism or the 700 Club. And all we have to do is believe in a vaguely defined omnipotent sky fairy who doesn't really do anything for us.
Not that I'm saying that only the religious can write good music, of course. It's just that Dawkins' little culture war on faith may have consequences he won't like.
Posted by: Brandon | December 20, 2007 9:03 AM
It's just that Dawkins' little culture war on faith may have consequences he won't like.
Oh, Brandon, come on. If you want to see the real destruction of good religious music, go to one of these nifty megachurches that play crappy pop songs. Anti-intellectualism and bad music/art/dance routines go together. Did anyone hear much Beethoven in Jesus Camp? Or Bach? Or Schubert? Ever wonder why?
Posted by: Kristine | December 20, 2007 10:09 AM
Brandon,
The symbolism and iconography of religion can be co-opted by unbelievers just as easily as believers. We still write stories involving elements of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology even though actual belief in those traditions has long been dead. This is because given aspects of those belief-systems reflect aspects of the human condition that are universal. In short, I don't think "faith" is necessarily the source of inspiration, and I doubt we'll be "deprived" of anything if it goes by the wayside.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 20, 2007 10:19 AM
Tyler, let me correct you:
"...I don't think "faith" is necessarily the source of inspiration, and I doubt we'll be "deprived" of anything " GOOD "if it goes by the wayside."
Posted by: Hugo | December 20, 2007 10:53 AM
I second Hugo. Nothing good will be lost. People will still be people with all the emotions that inspire beautiful music and art. I don't see Brandon breaking out in a sweat that there's nothing new Apollo-inspired in a while. Same difference.
Posted by: Donna | December 20, 2007 12:44 PM
Wait, belief in something without evidence is what allows you to write good music? I confess, I never took a course in music composition or anything like that in college, but I don't think that they started out by trying to get you to believe in homeopathy in order to write music.
Posted by: Skemono | December 20, 2007 2:18 PM
It's a lot of chord progression, how to write counterpoint, figured bass, that sort of stuff...at least early on. Much more fun when we got to twelve-tone.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 20, 2007 3:00 PM
I have a degree in music (voice). I guess I should have forgone the opportunity to sing Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Poulenc, Faure, Rachmaninov, Holst, de la Victoria, et. al. because I didn't believe the lyrics. Then again, we had one fundy who refused to perform Orff's Carmina Burana because it offended her Christian beliefs....
Posted by: MAJeff | December 20, 2007 3:03 PM
As for the question of atheists celebrating Christmas, a favorite take on it was just posted on DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY by Brother Crow, a relatively new member who'd been a preacher for 25 years but now considers himself an atheist. He said
I share his sentiments. The ideas behind our interpretation of Christmas are, for the most part, so good that I'll gladly celebrate them, without the religious echoes. (Besides, celebrating and having an excuse for all the types of pleasure connected with Christmas is a good thing in general.)
But I'm surprised no one has commented how totally the 'two meanings of Christmas' clash with each other -- and I'm not putting Christianity down here. Seeing a 'typical' Christmas display is like going backstage and seeing the sets for the next two productions jumbled in a room together.
There is none of the Bible story (or stories, Matthew and Luke share almost nothing in common) in our ideas of Christmas. No stable, no wandering, no plots, no shepherds except as they are dropped into it. Even the gift-giving' that can be tied to the 3 Kings should not be. They were bringing tribute to a king, not the attitude we have when we give our gifts.
And where are the snow, the reindeer, the fur-lined jackets, the bells, the chimneys, the elves in a story that takes place in early spring -- the date was originally celebrated on March 25th -- in the Middle East of Bethlehem?
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | December 20, 2007 3:31 PM
It amazes me how atheists say they don't believe in God, Jeebus, whatever, then turn around and sing carols and stuff! What hypocrites!
Is this the supposed "moderate atheism" that we're supposed to respect?
Posted by: Pseudonym | December 20, 2007 5:12 PM
Russell,
"that so worries Chuck, seems to me mostly the fearful fantasy of those Christians who are themselves so stuck in the ideological mode that they think secular folks must likewise be."
That's exactly my point. And Dawkins' point. And Ed's point, in this post, I believe. Only a theocrat would be surprised that Dawkins enjoys Christmas carols, and only a Jacobin would feel revulsion towards Christmas carols. As atheists, let's not slip into Jacobinism or any other rigid ideological mindset.
Posted by: Chuck | December 20, 2007 5:25 PM
To Pseudonym:
Well, we don't believe in God, but for us Christmas isn't about God. It's about showing our friends and family that we love them. It's the day when the whole family gathers around the dinner table (for once), passes the cake, gives gifts, and basically has fun. I don't care so much about the significance of Christmas as the fact that it is one of the 20 off-days my father gets in a year and the only time I get to see my extended family. That's what matters to me, not Santa or God.
As for Christmas carols - d'you know, I'm in the choir, and I've sing at least three different versions of "Ave Maria". I've also sung Masses in Latin and African, "Kyrie eleison", and various psalms. It's not so much the lyrics that matter. The music is beautiful, and that's all that counts.
We're not being hypocritical by celebrating "your" holiday, because some of us never take into consideration the fact that it is "your" holiday or "your" music. To us, it's "a" holiday and "good music". "Christian" or not simply does not factor into the equation. And that's the way it should be, no?
Posted by: Aerin | December 22, 2007 10:40 AM
Aerin: It was a joke. I just thought it wasn't necessary to point that out.
Posted by: Pseudonym | December 22, 2007 11:14 PM
Shorter Al Moehler: It's our holiday, and we're not sharing. Oh, and merry Christmas.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 23, 2007 6:15 AM
My mom's a Roman Catholic and raised me as such. Long before I started loving science, I lost my faith in God. However, I still like going to Mass, especially now that it's all back to Latin. Even more special to me is going to Midnight Mass with my mother. It means even more to me now that she's having trouble getting around despite her relative youth (for a veteran of several hip, spine, and knee surgeries), so I have to drive an hour and a half from the town where I live and learn, pack her into the car, and make it to Mass before the pews are full. The music and the feeling of belonging is beatiful, even if the hideously expensive remodeling of the church isn't. What's a Catholic church with no stained glass? Any excuse for family to get together, however, especially when one member is overseas and another about to ship out, is fine with me.
Posted by: Mac | December 27, 2007 2:17 AM