HuffPost Social Reading

Richard Dawkins: David Cameron Is 'Not Really' A Christian, He Says In Attack On Faith Schools

Richard Dawkins

Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 12/12/2011 14:33 Updated: 12/12/2011 16:56

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird

Controversial atheist Richard Dawkins has launched an attack on faith schools and even questioned the prime minister’s religious beliefs.

In an open letter published in the New Statesman, Dawkins criticised the government’s continued support for faith schools as "condescending" and went so far as to suggest that the Tory leader is an atheist.

Dawkins, who accuses the schools of "indoctrinating" religion, claims they pave the way for a "lifetime of discrimination and prejudice".

Referring to a previous spat where David Cameron implied the former Oxford University Biologist "just didn’t get it" when it came to religion, Dawkins wrote: "Actually, I think you got it all along. If you are like several government ministers (of all three parties) to whom I have spoken, you are not really a religious believer yourself.

"Several ministers and ex-ministers of education whom I have met, both Conservative and Labour, don’t believe in God but, to quote the philosopher Daniel Dennett, they do 'believe in belief'."

Cameron, who says his daughter Nancy has had an "excellent" education at a Church of England school, has always claimed to have a "fairly classic sort of faith" but has admitted his religious fervour ran "hotter and colder by moments".

Dawkins added: "A depressingly large number of intelligent and educated people, despite having outgrown religious faith, 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 even if we chaps don’t need it.

"Condescending? Patronising? Yes, but isn’t that largely what lies behind successive governments’ enthusiasm for faith schools?"

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK UNIVERSITIES & EDUCATION

Controversial atheist Richard Dawkins has launched an attack on faith schools and even questioned the prime minister’s religious beliefs. In an open letter published in the New Statesman, Dawkin...
Controversial atheist Richard Dawkins has launched an attack on faith schools and even questioned the prime minister’s religious beliefs. In an open letter published in the New Statesman, Dawkin...
Related News On Huffington Post:
 

Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
Christopher Lane

Christopher Lane: Two Ways Of Thinking About Agnosticism: Hitchens Vs. Dawkins

That Hitchens took a glass-half-full approach to agnostics is notable because it's sharply at odds with the line of his compatriot, Richard Dawkins, whose thoughts on agnostics are almost uniformly negative.

More in UK Universities & Education...


 
 
  • Comments
  • 172
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
alshahab
2 Fans
21:29 on 13/12/2011
both dawkins and cameron are a disaster, the former an intellectual devoid of intelligence whilst the latter is an unskilled politician
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mmulkeen
God hates facts.
74 Fans
01:54 on 14/12/2011
Dawkins is intelligent enough to have been an Oxford professor, have several best selling books, received numerous awards and become the world's most recognized atheist. So where is this lack of intelligence?

Cameron was politically skilled enough to become head of his party and PM, albeit through a coalition party.

Are your academic credentials or political achievements better?
Permalink  |
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
1625 Fans
02:31 on 14/12/2011
Be gentle with him, he probably went to `faith school'. or even worse a `faith university'. Then he probably tried to get help from a `faith doctor', any or all of which could explain his current predicament.
Permalink  |
alshahab
2 Fans
11:35 on 21/12/2011
being a professor at oxford is no merit or distinction. oxford is only one university amongst hundreds of others littering the globe.dawkins is not the only professor at oxford neither the only person to don a professor's cap. homer simpson happens to be more famous than him. his several best selling books are out sold by the book he despises the most i.e. the bible. it is not necessary that awards are granted to a deserving person. in many cases awards are given for political and ideological reasons, to enhance the status of a particular person - this applies to dawkins.

as to cameron becoming pm, history tells us that plenty of incompetent people made it to the top. the british political system has no safeguards to stop incompetents from coming into power. he only came to power because the labour party had lost the plot.

as to my academic credentials or political achievements? i have none, i need none, i work with people with disabilites and to do this i need no credentials and want no awards.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stanley Seay
Beware of Dogma
102 Fans
17:14 on 14/12/2011
I'm pretty sure most of us know who the one that is devoid of intelligence around here would be.
Permalink  |
alshahab
2 Fans
11:43 on 21/12/2011
i am pretty sure you know who is devoid of intelligence around here. after all you do see yourself in the mirror at least once a day.
Permalink  |
alshahab
2 Fans
21:23 on 13/12/2011
the problem with dawkins is that he thinks he knows all whereas the fact is that he knows nothing and the knowledge he possesses is so minute that in the universal scheme of things it is insignificant. i would agree with him if he had all the answers to the mysteries of life and death, creation and destruction, fate and destiny, explain the universe we know and ones we do not know. yet the fact is that he cannot even explain his own existence except that his birth is an accident of physical intimacy. dawkins is an overhyped psuedo intellectual whereas cameron is a clueless politician without conviction and will peddle whatever doctrine suits him to gain power or to cling to it.
Permalink  |
photo
Bebe Kashmir
33 Fans
00:49 on 14/12/2011
You should read something factual sometime. It may help you from spouting off like such a fool.
Permalink  |
alshahab
2 Fans
23:36 on 21/12/2011
how do you define factual? how factual is dawkins' assertion that cameron is not a christian? a fool is far better than a psuedo intellectual. it may help you if you harness your galloping gob
Permalink  |
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
1625 Fans
03:08 on 14/12/2011
I much prefer the shorter version, but that's on the grounds of style. The content's no better.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
General Public
liberal, progressive, atheist, Democrat, SubGenius
1827 Fans
 
20:04 on 13/12/2011
If David Cameron is an atheist, supporting religious indoctrination of young children is an awfully strange way for him to behave. Then again, he's a politician, so I think Richard Dawkins is correct about him in the sense that we should never underestimate the levels of hypocrisy that a politician who publicly supports religion and "family values" and "Christian morality" may have. For instance, many anti-gay politicians, who publicly spout homophobic viewpoints, actually turn out to be homosexuals themselves, who were just spouting that bigotry out of their own self-loathing. As for why an atheist would support religious indoctrination of others, well, atheists know better than anyone else that religions indoctrinate people to be subservient to authority and not think for themselves, and as a Tory, David Cameron would surely want the populace to be kept in such a state of ignorance and subservience, regardless of whether or not he believes in religion. And if he believes in religion, well then the answer is also quite simple: he wants everyone else to have the same beliefs as him and to eliminate all other competing viewpoints. In either case, David Cameron's motives are clearly villainous.
Permalink  |
Gillans
4 Fans
19:55 on 13/12/2011
Nihilists, J Shankel, do not believe in nothing - atheists do. Please check your facts.
Permalink  |
photo
Bebe Kashmir
33 Fans
00:53 on 14/12/2011
You are incorrect to say that Atheists believe in nothing. We simply don't believe in the claims made by humans on behalf of a god. There is a big difference.
Permalink  |
Gillans
4 Fans
13:00 on 14/12/2011
By reiterating what you don't believe in, you simply confirm what I stated.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JShankel
I want my country forward
3009 Fans
 
20:33 on 16/12/2011
No, atheists just don't believe in God. We're very free to believe in other things. You should try reading Russell if you think atheists don't believe in anything. On the other hand, nihilists, BY DEFINITION, believe in nothing. That's the very definition of the word.
Permalink  |
TruthOffends
10 Fans
18:53 on 23/03/2012
After Russel, try reading Wittgenstein (Catholic) or Anthony Flew (who finally came to accept the existence of God purely on scientific grounds).
Permalink  |
Gillans
4 Fans
19:52 on 13/12/2011
I've already posted several which appear to have been censored: why invite us to post more if no-one's allowed to read them?
Permalink  |
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
1625 Fans
02:29 on 14/12/2011
Since you're back, someone must have turned the nonsense filter off again.
Permalink  |
Gillans
4 Fans
13:02 on 14/12/2011
Your wit is absolutely side-splitting: your manners are even more outstanding.
Permalink  |
Turrall
0 Fans
19:39 on 13/12/2011
I always enjoy Richards arguments, but I wonder at his wisdom on child education. In his latest book aimed at our emerging minds, The Magic of Reality p.262, he says, "It is safe to conclude that the water-into-wine story is pure fiction". To support his claim he envokes David Hume's (1779) well known test for "miracle falsehood". But he fails to give the context; Hume also said, "we can never know with absolute certainty that a material world exists", and he may have felt that even the Higgs Boson would not give us that proof. Perhaps Richard should consider whether Faith Schools are better placed to give 'context'.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mmulkeen
God hates facts.
74 Fans
01:47 on 14/12/2011
We know with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that the material world exists. I don't think Hume was espousing that reality is a mere illusion. Rather in absolute or abstract logically terms terms, we cannot deductively prove things that are only known by experience. But we can have reasonable (but not abstractly absolute) certainty over enough things in the material world.

Some people contend that strictly speaking only math (or logic) can prove anything. Science does certainly not prove things like mathematics does. It only shows or demonstrates or evidences. The head of the chemistry department where I got my masters used to say this.

On a molecular level water itself (H2O) cannot be changed into any form of ethanol (CH3CH2OH), like alone wine which probably has the most complex of all tastes due to the various organic molecules it contains. Only the heat of dying suns is sufficient through the process of nuclear fusion to change hydrogen H to helium He to eventually carbon C. So the best science of chemistry and physics says water to wine is impossible. Yet water to "wine" is also a cheap trick of illusionists.

So which is likely more certain, a violation of the laws of nature, a cheap magic trick or just a fable for gullible people? The later two are more plausible, certainly for those outside of the Christian faith. One can drop reasonable conclusions without absolute certainty.
Permalink  |
Turrall
0 Fans
09:48 on 15/12/2011
I am not sure I would be comfortable to "know with certainty beyond a reaonable doubt that the material world exists"; that H20 cannot become CH3CH20H; that E=MC2 (until a fortnight ago); Jesus was a cheap trickster; Faith believers are gullible (easily deceived); water-into-wine scripture is pure fiction.
St.Augustine and Equinus may have been wrong as Einstein, but I would not call them "gullible". Jesus' supporters may have been over enthusiastic in their recording of events, but I would not call it "pure fiction", for in context it is part of the narrative of the human condition.
But I think words like "violation", "cheap", "gullible", "pure" can be the antithesis to broadening minds. Generally those who reach a point of "certainty" have become cagged by their own prejudices and inaccessible to reason.
I would hope and expect that Faith Schools teach the arts and sciences with less aggressive language so that as Richard advised his daughter, students can "make up your own mind". Naturally chemical reactions are also part of the context, and I am always pleaed to have them explained.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donchep
30 Fans
 
17:19 on 13/12/2011
I resent that Richard Dawkins NOTED ethologist and evolutionary biologist is simply referred to as "controversial atheist" as if that's his identity and who he is. How about noting his accomplishments and WHY he's famous not just that he's some kind of muckraker whose sole existence is to tweak the nose of creationists and young earth loons.
Permalink  |
Gillans
4 Fans
22:42 on 13/12/2011
He's referred to as a controversial atheist because he's an atheist who keeeps trying to stir up controversy - is that clear enough? Maybe he just enjoys the publicity or maybe he thinks he needs it.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donchep
30 Fans
 
23:42 on 13/12/2011
He's referred to as a "controversial atheist" as a loaded label that is clearly dismissive of his field of study and how it relates to his worldview. My question is how a respected news website can sink to that level of crass journalism?
Permalink  |
Gillans
4 Fans
22:44 on 13/12/2011
PS if you do some checking, I think you'll find he's an ethnologist & not an "ethologist"
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donchep
30 Fans
 
23:40 on 13/12/2011
Richard Dawkins is NOT an ethnologist (a discipline in anthropology) but an ethologist (a zoological study). His ex-wife Marian Stamp was also an ethologist. Ethology is almost his entire raison d'etre. I don't understand how someone could advise me do some checking when it's clear you have done NONE at all.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stanley Seay
Beware of Dogma
102 Fans
16:22 on 13/12/2011
I've never met a christian in my whole life. Now I've met an incalculable number of people that like to pretend they are christian, but not one single one of them has been a true christian. I know that plenty of people will desperately try to say otherwise, but it makes no difference, they aren't even close to being a christian. If people really believed like they pretend to belive, they wouldn't be eating shellfish or anything with a cloven hoof; they wouldn't be wearing clothes made of blended fabrics; they would be stoning their children to death for disrespect; they would force women that are pregnant by rape to marry their rapist; they would constantly be stoning people to death for adultery; they would uphold the sanctity of marriage by not getting divorced; they would actually know the ten commandments, blah, blah, blah...
Permalink  |
rabidrightwatch
Green leftie, planning for a sustainable future
353 Fans
16:54 on 13/12/2011
...and that's only the Old Testament... real Christians (and I've not met any either) have that to contend with too... it must be a terribly hard & troublesome life for them, but I suppose most have a reality-bypass anyway...
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stanley Seay
Beware of Dogma
102 Fans
21:02 on 13/12/2011
Surprised that I haven't seen anyone trying to regurgitate a bunch of nonsense about how Jesus ushered in a "new covenant" that eliminates the "old" laws. Of course, anyone that actually bothers to read the bible knows that no such ever happened even if Jesus did exist and was actually god's son/self.
Permalink  |
Gillans
4 Fans
22:51 on 13/12/2011
How clever you are! Congratulations on knowing better than Christians what Christian belief is. Have you communicated your wisdom to the Pope (or the leader/s of any other Christian denomination)? What resonse did you receive?
Permalink  |
photo
Bebe Kashmir
33 Fans
01:00 on 14/12/2011
You wasted a whole post to expose how incapable of intellectual discourse and self reflection you are. WOW!
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stanley Seay
Beware of Dogma
102 Fans
15:40 on 14/12/2011
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. -- Carl Sagan
Permalink  |
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
1625 Fans
14:46 on 13/12/2011
Well there you go. Cameron might have a hidden talent.
Permalink  |
Ivabradine
1 Fans
12:08 on 13/12/2011
A couple of points.
First, the experts seem to agree that religious belief, right or wrong,is a natural tendency in human beings.So those who teach atheism to the young are the brainwashers — not the other way around.

Second. Who has the rights over the education of children, the state or the parent? The answer of course is both. The state’s need is answered by the national curriculum, the parent’s need by providing as far as possible schools which support the parent’s ethos.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philip J Sparrow
When your work speaks for itself, keep quiet
592 Fans
13:58 on 13/12/2011
No one has any 'right' over the education of the child; it is the right, or perhaps even the responsibility, of the child to be educated. It is the responsibility of the state and the parents to ensure they get the best education possible, whether or not this complies with the parents' 'ethos'.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Orthrus
40 Fans
14:12 on 13/12/2011
Quote: "So those who teach atheism to the young are the brainwashe­rs"

How is atheism taught?
Permalink  |
Iorn Duke
2 Fans
11:32 on 13/12/2011
Does it really matter.Anyway its his own business isnt it.
Permalink  |
photo
Leslie James Dalzell
20 Fans
 
14:13 on 13/12/2011
Of course it matters! If you are a public figure, I have every right to know on how you make decisions in life. If you believe in virgin births and resurrections then you might believe in anything!
Permalink  |
photo
Xavier Jumbo G
118 Fans
17:55 on 13/12/2011
It wont matter when people are not forced to pay for it.
Permalink  |
PGU
11 Fans
11:25 on 13/12/2011
I think Dawkins will eventually do a Muggeridge. To make such a criticism suggests he places Christianity in some esteem.
Permalink  |
photo
indlovubill
29 Fans
11:58 on 13/12/2011
You could be right, he's a deeply troubled man by all accounts. The Dawkins Theory of Evolution is now debunked it's not mutation led, Darwin's finches are genetically the same, the variations of beak size and shape are variation of expression of one particular gene. Darwin got it exactly right they are natural variations.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philip J Sparrow
When your work speaks for itself, keep quiet
592 Fans
14:18 on 13/12/2011
Deeply troubled by all accounts? Whose accounts would these be?
Permalink  |
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
1625 Fans
14:42 on 13/12/2011
Indlovubull.
Permalink  |
isaac ajibade
0 Fans
11:22 on 13/12/2011
why cant this Prof. Richard Dawkins with his outdated views about God keep his views to himself. There are much more people who believe in God than in physics research that has not provided a conclusive proof on several fronts and the believe of the people who are also the majority must be represented in a democracy.
He will tell people with faith in God keep their faith from him, why cant he do the same with his unbelieve. You are an athethist despite your level of education and you know what the bible (Psalm 41:1) says about people like you.
you have wrongly claimed that the Government is supporting "Faith" schools, when it has, as a policy, that CREATIONISM cannot be thought as part of the curiculum in state schools. People with faith applying to open schools are being subjected to massive scrutiny by state officials to determine if their views are moderate of radical. it is ironic that such intrusive scrutiny is not applied to athethists who are driving education policy and trying to establish schools.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmorgan1981
Veni, Vidi, Vici.
108 Fans
 
14:50 on 13/12/2011
So do you justify Genocide as is described in 1 Samuel 15?

How about the killing of babies, even unborn babies? Hosea 13:16 "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up"

How about Ezekiel 23:25 talking about cutting the ears and nose off a woman, and burning her children alive? "And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire."

The bible is replete with things like this, and we are supposed to believe Christianity is Pro-Life?

There is no place in a civilized world for religion that justifies stripping women of their clothing, mutilating their bodies, burning their children, etc. God cannot claim to be love in one end of the book, when in the other end of the book he is a sadist that makes Hitler look tame.
Permalink  |
rabidrightwatch
Green leftie, planning for a sustainable future
353 Fans
11:14 on 13/12/2011
Religion should not be taught in schools; it's a private matter that grown-ups should decide for themselves.

Faith schools are by their very nature divisive, selective and should not be countenanced in any civilised society.
We should concentrate on celebrating our differences, not exacerbating religious divides, and faith schools only reinforce prejudice.

And that goes across the whole spectrum of religion; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu.

Schools are for education, not for religious indoctrination.
Permalink  |
ukputter
0 Fans
11:11 on 13/12/2011
I am a Christian and have no problem with Richard Dawkins viewpoint or even at his always seeming to have a go at faith, in whatever mode it appears. I also have no problem with his and others attacks on religion for I too believe that much that we call evil has been done in the name of religion. I just feel sad that so much of what is reported about him seems so caustic and given that the press in this country have no agenda for faith, I must assume that their reporting has at least a grain of truth to it. but at the heart of the Christian faith is not an ideology but a person whose life exemplified love, even in many of the hard things that he had to say and whose death was an act of self giving because in that death, be broke the power of death.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmorgan1981
Veni, Vidi, Vici.
108 Fans
 
14:54 on 13/12/2011
Is this the love to which you speak?

Genocide as is described in 1 Samuel 15?

How about the killing of babies, even unborn babies? Hosea 13:16 "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up" Wow that is pro-life!

How about Ezekiel 23:25 talking about cutting the ears and nose off a woman, and burning her children alive? "And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire."

This is just a sample, there are pages and pages of quotes that are just as bad.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stanley Seay
Beware of Dogma
102 Fans
17:54 on 14/12/2011
As an atheist, I'm forced to recognize the true brilliance of some of the teachings attributed to Jesus whether he was real or just a montage of various faith healers of the time. The Sermon on the Mount has some incredibly advanced thinking even thousands of years later. Unfortunately, most believers seem only capable of invoking Christ when it suites their own needs. Reminds me of what Gandhi said:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Permalink  |
 
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)