Can you help me understand why Richard Dawkins would say ...?

What, you don't think understanding your cultural heritage is important?

Hmm, my first impulse is to say Richard Dawkins can't be all that bad, if he advocates reading the KJB. However, in respect of real faith, he might just as well be a mile away.

Now, Dawkins is known for his atheism and one would normally have thought that the last thing he would advocate is the reading of the KJV (they didn't burn it as a dangerous book for nothing). Perhaps because he knows that many Christians don't read their Bible, or believe it, as they used to, it would seem that success is making him somewhat reckless....

(Hey, I just realised that the story of Samson is like this. The Philistines put out his eyes and cut his hair, but one day, when they got too complacent, they didn't notice that his hair had grown back... Hmm... the same old power was still there with him, and one last time Samson used it).

This matter brings to mind an interesting Bible quote which also sheds light on the matter:

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

What is 'a form of godliness' if not 'Christian culture' empty of all true faith and what is 'denying the power thereof' if not atheism or militant humanism? And yet, in the Last Days, the Bible tells us that there will be folk like that around. Well, who are they?

When nominal Christianity (ie. folk that don't really believe, but like the culture) aligns with humanism and atheism, that is called 'syncretism'. It is the watering-down and compromising of true, biblical faith and getting into the things of 'the world'. It is typically modelled in the joining of 'church and state' so that, to be a citizen you also have to be a 'believer'. Bit like in Roman times, to be a Roman you also had to worship Caesar. Never mind if you did it 'tongue in cheek' - you must at least give him 'lip service'.

Now, this is what is coming out here, to me. Have you noticed that, although we have the UN - and have had it for many years - now there is another powerful 'kid on the block' come up - the UR? Standing for 'United Religions'. Who also, by the way, want to make - religious - rules for us to live by.

Why is this? Well, because the 'kings of the earth' (the mighty, the strong, the rich, the influential of this world) have a dream of 'One World and One people' - of uniting the world through a One World Government. However, since around three quarters of the world's people still believe in 'something' they realise that this dream is unachievable unless they take advantage of the support of the religionists, of whatever ilk they are. That is why there is a UR, because the aim cannot be achieved without the support of the 'faith' people.

And I think this is where Dawkins comes in. He is not saying he believes the Bible, nor has any 'faith', but he sees the use of 'Christian culture', etc. as a powerful tool in forging a new and more cohesive society. After all, if you want to destroy something, you have to replace it by something else which you think is better.

Put simply, everyone has to believe in something and even Dawkins, if he doesn't believe in God, probably believes in humanity and - quite likely - is also a globalist. Everyone has to find meaning in life and that means, for some - mounting a 'crusade' and changing things!

Richard was supportive in the Trust's objective to ensure the 2011 is a year for everyone to celebrate the vital role the King James Version has played on the development of the history, language and literature of the English-speaking world saying, "it is important that religion should not be allowed to hijack this cultural resource".

He's referring to the way Western civilization is steeped in Christian culture, and referring to the necessity of reading the Bible in order to better understand that society, its customs, mores, and literature. He has said as much before, and I agree. I am, however, still an atheist.

In that barbarians are considered to be those that are not civilized, and in that Dawkins correctly places the Bible as a cultural anchor for Western societies, the comment would make sense.

I lived in the middle east for some years and once you get some distance from your own culture, in my case England, you can see its cultural roots more clearly, especially when living in an Islamic culture as I was then.

England has a very clear Christian heritage, even though we are secularised now.

Perhaps he means that popular culture contains so many Biblical references that one would practically have to have been living under a rock for their whole life to be completely unacquainted with the Bible.

He's right. It's a bit like being totally ignorant about Shakespeare. It's part of the cultural identity of the UK there's lots of works that should/could be added to that list as well. Beowulf is one I would put on that list

Just because we are atheist does not mean that we cannot understand the cultural basis for our western civilisation. It does not mean we cannot appreciate fine literature.

It is only the god bit that we reject. Even Jesus message is hard to fault as a piece of philosophy. I just think it came from Man and not from a god.

The king James bible is the protestant version of the true bible. If God cannot do wrong things why does he allow them to happen?Surely an omnipotent super being could stop all the bad with a mere thought?

A correct conclusion