Staunch Atheist Christopher Dawkins: "Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse."

[smac97]

Well-known atheist Richard Dawkins is certainly no friend to Christianity (or, indeed, to religion in general).  Consider the following statements he has made:

• “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
• "An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf."
• “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” 
• "I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
• “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” 
• “Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional 'next world' is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.”
• "We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
• "What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"
• "I don't believe you until you tell me, do you really believe, for example, if they say they are Catholic, 'Do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?' Mock them. Ridicule them. In public. Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."
• "I am often accused of expressing contempt and despising religious people. I don't despise religious people, I despise what they stand for. I like to quote the British journalist Johann Hari who said, 'I have so much respect for you, that I cannot respect your ridiculous ideas.'"
• "Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not."
• "I want to examine that dangerous thing that’s common to Judaism and Christianity as well: the process of non-thinking called 'faith.'"
• "What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."
• "I can think of no moral objection to eating human road kills except for the ones that you mentioned like 'what would the relatives think about it?' and 'would the person themselves have wanted it to happen?'"
• "Suppose you take the argument in favour of abortion up until the baby was one year old, if a baby was one year old and turned out to have some horrible incurable disease that meant it was going to die in agony in later life, what about infanticide? Strictly morally I can see no objection to that at all, I would be in favour of infanticide."
• You've just said a very revealing thing. Are you telling me that the only reason you don't steal and rape and murder is that you're frightened of God?
• (Speaking of a fetus with Down Syndrome) "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

I do not disagree with Dawkins in all respects.  For example, I find some things worth thinking about in the following statements:

• “A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a 'child of Muslim parents' will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.” 
• “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.” 
• "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions. This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian the same way as many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims. So, yes, I love singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history."

Nevertheless, in the main Dawkins has made a career of belittling, insulting and criticizing religion in general and Christianity in particular.

It was surprising, then, to read this:

Quote

 

Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’

In a text that is coursing about on social media, professional God-slayer Richard Dawkins begrudgingly admitted that Christianity may actually be our best defense against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world.

“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”

In a rare moment of candor, Dawkins reluctantly accepted that the teachings of Jesus Christ do not lead to a world of terror, whereas followers of radical Islam perpetrate the very atrocities that he laments.

Because of this realization, Dawkins wondered aloud whether Christianity might indeed offer an antidote to protect western civilization against jihad.

“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,” he said.

Although the text originated in 2010, it has taken on a second life, being sent to and fro on Facebook and Twitter and providing fodder for discussions, even among atheists, of the benefits of Christianity for modern society.

Dawkins was trained as an evolutionary biologist, but achieved his greatest celebrity not through biology but through his pop atheism, regularly debating theists in public and penning diatribes against God and faith.

In his 2006 bestseller, The God Delusion, Dawkins famously compared religious education to the sexual abuse of children, concluding incredibly that the latter was actually preferable to the former.

Referring to the clerical sex abuse crisis, Dawkins wrote that as “horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”

Faced with the suicide bombers and child rapists of radical Islam, however, Dawkins finally found something that he thought was worse.

 

What I find interesting in this is the relative valuations of belief systems promulgated by Mr. Dawkins.  That is to say, Mr. Dawkins appears to really, really dislike religion in general, with particular vitriol reserved for certain subsets of it (such as Christianity and, more specifically, Catholicism).  For example, as noted above he went so far as to suggest that sexual abuse of a child is a less serious offense than raising a child in the Catholic faith.  

And yet despite the visceral contempt he feels and expresses toward Christianity, he apparently finds it has some redemptive value as "a bulwark against something worse," namely, militant/radical Islam.

My point in creating this thread is not to illustrate or discuss the relative merits of "Christianity" and "Islam," or even to discuss what Dawkins things of Christianity and Islam.  Rather, I wish to point out what Dawkins is not discussing: the merit of atheism as "a bulwark against something worse."  Dawkins has made a career and livelihood of encouraging others to forsake religion and to take up atheism.  But when it comes to Western civilization defending itself against something as destructive and malevolent as radical Islam, Dawkins favored worldview - atheism - drops by the wayside.

Where are Dawkins' quotes about atheism being a "bulwark against something worse?"  I'm not sure there are any.  Isn't that, you know, rather an indictment about the merits of atheism as a worldview?  Atheism is so weak, so incapable of marshaling communities and civilizations together in defense of themselves that even one of its greatest evangelists, Christopher Dawkins, is forced to admit that Christianity can and does do what atheism cannot.

Put another way, Dawkins appears to be stating that Christianity is bad, but that atheism as a worldview is ineffectual in the face of an existential threat, which would seem to make it worse than Christianity by a fair margin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

To be fair to Mr. Dawkins some of his argument have validity. Unfortunately many of his arguments are just atheistic propaganda. The study of the natural world(science) can not be used to prove or disprove any God or lack thereof.  More specifically as a Christian church we LDS have a mandate to study all things including our natural world/universe.

[bluebell]

Hey Smac, in the thread title you have Dawkin's first name as Christopher and then in the OP it's Richard.  Just an FYI.

[stemelbow]

 

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hey Smac, in the thread title you have Dawkin's first name as Christopher and then in the OP it's Richard.  Just an FYI.

Yeah I think he confused Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.  Mr. Hitchens passed away. 

I know he gets upset and is a bit of a propagandist when it comes to his battle against religion, but there is something cute about him. 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

Yeah I think he confused Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.  Mr. Hitchens passed away. 

I know he gets upset and is a bit of a propagandist when it comes to his battle against religion, but there is something cute about him. 

I thought maybe he got Christopher Hawking and Richard Dawkins confused for a second.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

To be fair to Mr. Dawkins some of his argument have validity. Unfortunately many of his arguments are just atheistic propaganda. The study of the natural world(science) can not be used to prove or disprove any God or lack thereof.  More specifically as a Christian church we LDS have a mandate to study all things including our natural world/universe.

I agree with you.  While I find the atheistic worldview generally untenable/unappealing, I am devoted to pursuing truth through all means available to us, including "science."  I do not, however, share the same sacrosanct, quasi-religious views on "science" that Dawkins appears to have.

Science has precious little to say about momentous things like the existence of God, the existence of souls, life after death, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

There is nothing about Islam that demands violence, at least any more than Christianity. The problem is fundamentalism and radicalization. The problem is not Islam. 

[Analytics]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Science has precious little to say about momentous things like the existence of God, the existence of souls, life after death, and so on.

In principle, everything that interacts with observable reality is in the purview of science.  If science has nothing to say about the existence of God, souls, and life after death, it's for the same reason that it has nothing to say about unicorns--there is nothing to observe. 

As an obvious example, what is "God"?  The creator of the universe?  Or a product of the universe?  Something that exists but without form and substance?  Or a humanoid from a planet orbiting the star Kolob?  The entity that inspires radical Muslims to commit acts of terror?   

Science can talk at great lengths about things as evanescent and counterintuitive as the quantum mechanical characteristics of a single photon of light, but it has nothing to say about the existence of unicorns.  That isn't a limitation of science--it's a limitation on what is there to be observed.

Regarding you main point in the OP, you are reading way too much into a single quote.  He said Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.  Then again, it might not be.  This single speculation isn't the least bit representative of his thoughts about the virtue of atheism.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Analytics

[cinepro]

Who was it that said "Don't knock religion.  It's the only thing that keeps the poor from murdering the rich"?

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In principle, everything that interacts with observable reality is in the purview of science.  If science has nothing to say about the existence of God, souls, and life after death, it's for the same reason that it has nothing to say about unicorns--there is nothing to observe. 

First, it appears that we are more or less in agreement about there being limitations on the utility of science (which, it should go without saying, is quite a different topic from atheism).

Second, the existence or non-existence of unicorns is not important to me or to society.

Third, there are things which are important to society, such as morality, ethics, how we treat each other, and so on.  "Science" does not speak to these very well.  So as useful as "science" is in many ways, it has its limitations.  However, Christianity does speak to these things, and does so often.  And it does so by linking adherents to something larger than themselves.  Dawkins' cheap shots notwithstanding, Christians are not motivated in their conduct solely by a desire to avoid punishment (that is a factor, I suppose, but not, I think, the primary one).  Instead, I think Christians who strive to adhere to the basic tenets of their faith (believe in God, serve others, life righteously, repent, forgive, etc.) do so as an expressive fulfillment of John 14:15: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Fourth, society is therefore generally improved when Christians live according to the moral code presented in their faith.  In contrast, as noted above, "science" presents no moral code.  Atheism likewise has no organic moral code of its own.  Hence Dawkins' confession that the morality of things as basic as the evils of Hitler's actions, or eating "human roadkill," or infanticide, is elusive to him, while failing to abort a Down Syndrome baby is, to him, "immoral."  And to the extent that atheism purports to have a moral code, such a code is derivative of the judeo-christian one.  I think this is why Dawkins is, however reluctantly and half-heartedly, conceding that Christianity as a moral force in society is, despite its flaws and failings, a "bulwark against something worse."

Fifth, my commentss are not really about the utility or non-utility of "science," but rather the non-utility of atheism as a worldview (or to continue from the preceding paragraph, as "a moral force in society").  I suppose it can work in an environment where people live peaceably side-by-side, where society (spawned from and materially enlightened by judeo-christian ethics) allows for differing opinions on important matters.  But in the face of an existential threat like radicalized, militant Islamists, Dawkins becomes a bit more contrite in his criticism of Christianity, calling it a "bulwark against something worse."  And he apparently has nothing to say about the merits of atheism being a "bulwark."  'Cuz it isn't.  It has no utility in that regard.

Quote

Science can talk at great lengths about things as evanescent and counterintuitive as the quantum mechanical characteristics of a single photon of light, but it has nothing to say about the existence of unicorns.  That isn't a limitation of science--it's a limitation on what is there to be observed.

Regarding you main point in the OP, you are reading way too much into a single quote.  He said Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.  Then again, it might not be.  This single speculation isn't the least bit representative of his thoughts about the virtue of atheism.

Point taken.  So what does Dawkins have to say about atheism as a "bulwark" against a malevolent threat to the fabric of society, such as radicalized, militant Islamists?

Also, I'm wondering why we should listen to someone who, for all his manifest intelligence and thought, cannot bring himself to discern the answers to basic moral questions?  If his brand of atheism is superior to Christianity as a worldview, why isn't he describing it as a "bulwark against something worse" than radicalized, militant Islamists?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2016 by smac97

[Ahab]

Yes, as Analytics said, you're reading too much into that line. All things are relatively better or worse than something else, unless it is the very best or the very worst thing, so when says Christianity might be better than something worse (than Christianity) he isn't saying that Christianity is better than Atheism (to him). He just meant he can see some things that (he thinks) are worse than (what he thinks of as) Christianity. 

Btw, thank you for quoting so much of his trash talk (I say sarcastically).

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In principle, everything that interacts with observable reality is in the purview of science.  If science has nothing to say about the existence of God, souls, and life after death, it's for the same reason that it has nothing to say about unicorns--there is nothing to observe. 

As an obvious example, what is "God"?  The creator of the universe?  Or a product of the universe?  Something that exists but without form and substance?  Or a humanoid from a planet orbiting the star Kolob?  The entity that inspires radical Muslims to commit acts of terror?   

Science can talk at great lengths about things as evanescent and counterintuitive as the quantum mechanical characteristics of a single photon of light, but it has nothing to say about the existence of unicorns.  That isn't a limitation of science--it's a limitation on what is there to be observed.

Regarding you main point in the OP, you are reading way too much into a single quote.  He said Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.  Then again, it might not be.  This single speculation isn't the least bit representative of his thoughts about the virtue of atheism.

Ad Hoc ergo Post Hoc fallacy. We currently don't have the ability to "observe" any deity.

The same belief in a deity that "inspired" the Crusades, "inspired" hospitals. Which one we mortals choose to do is up to us.

BTW. Galileo was a Catholic, Newton was a Christian, Darwin was a Anglican, Kenneth Miller is a Catholic, Francis Collins is a Catholic, and Henry Eyring was a LDS. The list of noted religious people who were/are also scientists is long and varied.

[Analytics]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Who was it that said "Don't knock religion.  It's the only thing that keeps the poor from murdering the rich"?

It was about 2,000 years ago that Seneca said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

Richard Dawkins is a pleasant and normally very optimistic person.  He freely admits that religion offers some psychological consolations things that atheism doesn't.  He's doesn't hesitate to acknowledge that different religious interpretations are better than others.  The question that remains, then, is whether the advantages of religion outweigh the disadvantages.  That depends, of course, upon the specific characteristics of the individual, society, and religion we are talking about. 

In general, Dawkins is very optimistic and thinks that we can handle the truth and that humanity would be much better off if everybody took a scientific approach to the basic questions of life and embraced reality. 

 

[smac97]

Quote

In general, Dawkins is very optimistic and thinks that we can handle the truth and that humanity would be much better off if everybody took a scientific approach to the basic questions of life and embraced reality. 

He seems to conflate "a scientific approach to the basic questions of life" with "atheism."  Is that a fair statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Science can talk at great lengths about things as evanescent and counterintuitive as the quantum mechanical characteristics of a single photon of light, but it has nothing to say about the existence of unicorns.  That isn't a limitation of science--it's a limitation on what is there to be observed.

 

Sometimes science gets a little big for it's britches.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that science had absolutely nothing to say about the quantum mechanical characteristics of a single photon of light either, because it did not yet know that photons existed. Photons have always been there to be observed, but science has not always been able to observe them.  Because.....(wait for it)..........(here it comes).........of the limitations of science at the time.  

Considering the number of times this has happened to science, you'd think science's ego would be a little smaller.

[thesometimesaint]

I like to think of science as a naturally limited way of looking at our world/universe. Very good at what it can do. Not so much at what it can't do..

[carbon dioxide]

We see what is happening in Europe to see this to be the case.  The Europeans have pretty much given up on religious things for worldly things and they have become soft and gullible.  They are letting hordes of people from the Middle East in and they think that these people will be so impressed with their liberalism that the migrants will change.  But they will not change and if the Europeans do not get their act together, they will be slowly replaced by the foreigners.  Atheism simply does not have the ability to inspire large groups of people to be better or gather around a common goal.  There is no cause to fight and die for in atheism.  Death is to be avoided at all costs as once one dies, their existence has ended.  If all I am is some evolved, higher animal, why should I care about the world?  No other animal really cares and if mankind goes extinct, what is the big deal?  Its all just a part of nature and the history of the world.  Our fossils be be dug up by some evolved animal 100 million years from now and they will make claims about us as we make about the dinosaurs and put our bones on display.  Religion unites people together far better than non-religion does for good or for bad but there is nothing in atheism to unite over.

Edited January 15, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well-known atheist Richard Dawkins is certainly no friend to Christianity (or, indeed, to religion in general).  Consider the following statements he has made:......

 

Put another way, Dawkins appears to be stating that Christianity is bad, but that atheism as a worldview is ineffectual in the face of an existential threat, which would seem to make it worse than Christianity by a fair margin.

Thanks,

-Smac

What this proves, to me. is that Mormonism is the best possible set of religious beliefs, for the same reasons I have been saying that for 35 years.

Why do I say that?

What Dawkins here admits, is that religion has pragmatic value.  People are better for having religious beliefs which promote a peaceful society.

The best possible religion would be one who exalts humanity and human peacefulness, even from an atheist point of view.  Even atheists can see the benefits of a theistic humanism in which God can be described as a "glorified human Man of Holiness". Even an atheist could buy that- and some have actually said they could believe in such a God if they knew where to find it.

I know where to find it!!

So for me, I think it can be shown,  even to an atheist that we have the best set of beliefs of a religious nature, for all mankind.  We go beyond classic "Christianity" and identify God as the Father of a family- the family of humanity. 

Just simply looking dispassionately at the belief set, forgetting about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and all that, our version of Christianity- the religion of peace- with our belief in the exaltation of mankind into an eternal family- even someone like Dawkins can see the value there!

So if we presented ourselves along those lines to secular people- how much traction could we get?

Edited January 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

It a bit more complex than that. For one Middle Easterners have been in Europe for millennia. Aside from religion is it impossible to tell their national origin. Secondly I'm not convinced that avoiding death at all costs is preferable to seeking death as some Christians do. Thirdly without immigration ethnic Europeans are not replenishing their aging population fast enough so have a declining population base. That being said Atheism has no appeal to me, but then again some forms of Theism don't either.

[mfbukowski]

I am so glad to have a thread on the utility of religion.

A few years ago, this would have been a confused discussion trying to define the "truth" of religion.  Some will want to go there, but still, progress has been made.

[Analytics]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He seems to conflate "a scientific approach to the basic questions of life" with "atheism."  Is that a fair statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not exactly.  "Atheism" just means you don't believe in God--it doesn't mean that you are positively engaged with a scientific world view.  Atheists could and too often do believe in any number of unscientific things.  If you look at the list of Dawkins popular books, most of them are about science, not atheism.

[thesometimesaint]

I obviously disagree with Mr. Dawkins on Atheism, but his science is good.

[Ahab]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Not exactly.  "Atheism" just means you don't believe in God--it doesn't mean that you are positively engaged with a scientific world view.  Atheists could and too often do believe in any number of unscientific things.  If you look at the list of Dawkins popular books, most of them are about science, not atheism.

Actually atheists are only denying their own concept/understanding of God,  which I would too if my idea of God was the same as theirs is.  

If they would just be open to the idea that we are God,  being the same kind of being as our fathers/ancestors in heaven, they would then realize that God does exist. 

The supreme being is us, or at least the best there is of us.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, it appears that we are more or less in agreement about there being limitations on the utility of science (which, it should go without saying, is quite a different topic from atheism).

Okay.

 

Quote

Second, the existence or non-existence of unicorns is not important to me or to society.

True.  I was using it as example of why science has precious little to say about certain things.

 

Quote

Third, there are things which are important to society, such as morality, ethics, how we treat each other, and so on.  "Science" does not speak to these very well.  So as useful as "science" is in many ways, it has its limitations.  However, Christianity does speak to these things, and does so often.  And it does so by linking adherents to something larger than themselves.  Dawkins' cheap shots notwithstanding, Christians are not motivated in their conduct solely by a desire to avoid punishment (that is a factor, I suppose, but not, I think, the primary one).  Instead, I think Christians who strive to adhere to the basic tenets of their faith (believe in God, serve others, life righteously, repent, forgive, etc.) do so as an expressive fulfillment of John 14:15: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Science has some huge advantages over religion when it comes to answering ethical questions.  Most fundamentally, it is anchored in observable reality.  Appeals to God and religion for answers to moral questions can't even settle such basic questions of whether Islamic terrorists are the morally good guys or morally bad guys.  I'd suggest you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris to understand ethics based on non-religion better.  Harris is a very reasonable and pleasant guy, by the way.

On your claim that Richard Dawkins (or Christopher Hitchens?) makes cheap shots that Christians are motivated in their conduct solely by a desire to avoid punishment, CFR.

 

Quote

Fourth, society is therefore generally improved when Christians live according to the moral code presented in their faith.  In contrast, as noted above, "science" presents no moral code.  Atheism likewise has no organic moral code of its own.  Hence Dawkins' confession that the morality of things as basic as the evils of Hitler's actions, or eating "human roadkill," or infanticide, is elusive to him, while failing to abort a Down Syndrome baby is, to him, "immoral."  And to the extent that atheism purports to have a moral code, such a code is derivative of the judeo-christian one.  I think this is why Dawkins is, however reluctantly and half-heartedly, conceding that Christianity as a moral force in society is, despite its flaws and failings, a "bulwark against something worse."

Dawkins doesn't hesitate to give credit where credit is due, and he doesn't avoid asking the hard questions.  However, you misunderstand Dawkins point on these issues.

 

Quote

Fifth, my commentss are not really about the utility or non-utility of "science," but rather the non-utility of atheism as a worldview (or to continue from the preceding paragraph, as "a moral force in society").  I suppose it can work in an environment where people live peaceably side-by-side, where society (spawned from and materially enlightened by judeo-christian ethics) allows for differing opinions on important matters.  But in the face of an existential threat like radicalized, militant Islamists, Dawkins becomes a bit more contrite in his criticism of Christianity, calling it a "bulwark against something worse."  And he apparently has nothing to say about the merits of atheism being a "bulwark."  'Cuz it isn't.  It has no utility in that regard.

On what basis do you say that Dawkins has nothing to say about the merits of atheism as a "bulwark." Have you read everything he's ever written?  You come across as having read absolutely nothing of his, other than a few select quotes that were compiled by his critics.  You can hold whatever views you want of course, but you are reading way to much into his point of view based upon having almost no knowledge of his beliefs.

 

Quote

Point taken.  So what does Dawkins have to say about atheism as a "bulwark" against a malevolent threat to the fabric of society, such as radicalized, militant Islamists?

That's an awfully specific question.  If I referred you to an entire book of his about morality but it didn't contain a specific sentence describing atheism as a "bulwark" against radicalized, militant Islamists, would that indicate that you have fairly represented his views here?

 

Quote

Also, I'm wondering why we should listen to someone who, for all his manifest intelligence and thought, cannot bring himself to discern the answers to basic moral questions?  If his brand of atheism is superior to Christianity as a worldview, why isn't he describing it as a "bulwark against something worse" than radicalized, militant Islamists?

You are misrepresenting him.  He described some ethical questions as being difficult, not as having no discernible answers.  If you want to understand his thinking, you should read some of his books in their entirety.  The fact that you think these "most basic moral questions" are easy indicates that you haven't thought about the issues very deeply or aren't willing to discuss them openly the way that Dawkins does.  

It appears you think the one and only redeeming factor in any world view is the extent to which it is a "bulwark against something worse."  Dawkins doesn't think that way. 

[Analytics]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Actually atheists are only denying their own concept/understanding of God,  which I would too if my idea of God was the same as theirs is.  

If they would just be open to the idea that we are God,  being the same kind of being as our fathers/ancestors in heaven, they would then realize that God does exist. 

The supreme being is us, or at least the best there is of us.

This view that "we" are God is appealing to me.  I personally feel a deep sense of reverence for everyone that has come before me and for everyone around me for their contributions to the existence of what I enjoy in life, and the good things they've provided for society in general.  I feel an obligation to forgive others when they screw up, and hope that they will likewise forgive me.  I feel love for others, and would like to leave the world a better place.

The problem is that "God" isn't a well-defined word.  Some people think God is here within people.  Others think God is everywhere.  Others think He is on Mount Olympus, and others think He is on a planet near Kolob.  Some think He is a She and is the earth.  Some think God is the one that inspires Christians to do what they do, and others think He is the one that inspires radial Muslims to do what they do.  Some think God created man, and others think man created God.

I don't believe in "God" because "God" isn't well-defined.