This editorial basically says it all. Modern-day secular fanatics want to brainwash your kids just like the Nazis, and they want to ban religion. They really do. Read the attached, and while you’re at it read this article in Wired.
Here’s the quotation that had my wife really worried:
But the atheist movement, by his lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news. Evangelism is a moral imperative. (Richard) Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes. “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”
Keep in mind this is not a random wacko. This is a leading intellectual being honest about his modern-day fascism. Frightening stuff.
Frightening indeed!!
Instead of raising our children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord”, we would be forced to raise children according to the philosophies of men…mingled, perhaps, with a few scriptures (if we are lucky).
Thank you, Korihor (Richard Dawkins), for protecting my children from religious myths.
As an alternate choice, perhaps Mr. Dawkins would allow me to teach my children correct principles, that they may govern themselves!!!
I read the Wired piece — it’s not like we really have anything to worry about from Atheism, Inc. This isn’t Europe. And geez, how can anyone who takes Sam Harris seriously think that their essay will carry any credibility? Dennett and Dawkins at least have something to say. Ironic that Dawkins complains about parents teaching “manifest falsehoods” to their kids, while Dennett thinks its just fine to lie to kids about Santa Claus. I guess falsehoods are wrong if taught by parents but fine if taught by atheists?
What a bunch of fear-mongering this post is!
I mean honestly, if one switched the words “atheist” and “secular” for “religious” and “Christian” I don’t see how this would change anything at all.
While I certainly don’t agree with how uncritically critical of religion dawkins can be, this post is certainly less than charitable to him.
Besides, maybe it’s not all that bad for the leader of such a despised minority to speak up for the group which they represent in such strong language.
Either way, calling Dawkins a Nazi or a Fascist is just ridiculous on pretty much every level.
For the record, Dawkins, Dennett, John and Harris are all different people with different views. The idea of “banning all religion” seems to be pretty much isolated to John. Dawkins and Harris want to destroy religion, but not ban it. Dennett has the most responsible position in that he isn’t sure if religion should be banned or kept around.
Jeff G, do you think Dawkins knows better than you do how to raise your kids? Have you ever studied the history of Nazi Germany, or Communist Cuba, Russia, China, etc? One of the first thing that fascists and Communists do is start indoctrinating kids. That’s exactly what Dawkins wants to do as well. And he has said this several times in several interviews. His views are despicable and need to be exposed, vilified and refuted.
I am completely OK with people choosing to be atheists. I am even OK with them arguing for atheism and debating others publicly. But when they start saying that they have a greater right to raise and teach my kids than I do, they are wrong and, yes, despicable.
Brain,
How is “raising our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” any less brain washing than what Dawkins supposedly advocates? To suppose that we can ever have just plain ol’ scriptures which are not mingled with the philosophies of men is a bygone delusion.
Your idea of teaching them “correct principles” so as to governed themselves is exactly what these men also advocate. They claim that your “correct principles” are exactly what are so harmful. I should also point out that the idea that religious parents passively let their children choose for themselves is a crock.
Dave,
Are you really going to suggest that you teach you child that the Santa exists in the exact same way that you teach them to believe that God exists? C’mon man, you’re better than this. It is exactly the teaching that God exists as we teach that Santa exists that Dennett suspects might be a good thing.
#2 — It may not carry any weight in the short term, but when guys like Elton John, and this Harris Wacko, and then Bill Maher esentially saying the same thing, the masses going forward will no doubt use this as leverage to start a movement that would see organized religion banned completely in the coming generation(s)!
It does not help neither that such hypocrisy is being leveled on the people as that committed by Ted Haggard lately…I used to think that the NAE and other associated organizations were good for society as a whole because I was naive enough to think they extolled the virtues of a good spiritual life, but now, I have no assuarance that they even know what they are doing, and yes it is only one man, but he sure has some ‘splaining to do to the millions he has lied to…what would happen to us if President Hinckley or one of the apostles pulled this kind of stunt?? Seriously, what a bunch of weak minded, undedicated, and misguided idiots!! Weirder still, these guys are shaping the basis for the future of Western Cultural thought, and it is ugly! They can ban religion outright if they want, and they can legalize all of these potentially damning immoralities, but they will say nothing more than, ‘How did we get here?’ when they do!!
Geoff,
I should first confess that my position is far closer to Dennett’s than it is to Dawkins. I think that Dawkins is far too confident that religion is bad and should be done away with. Dennett, on the other hand, strongly advocates a survey of religion course for all high schoolers, in order to give them a real choice in the matter.
Dawkins is not telling you how to raise your kids so much as how NOT to raise your kids. If you don’t think this is okay, then lets get rid of a lot of the laws which we have in place to protect children from poor parenting. After all, how dare the state think that THEY know how I should raise my kids?!
My point is that indoctrination in child rearing is inevitable. The question is, what kind of indoctrination? Dawkins is simply saying that teach manifest truths as something which should be believed NO MATTER WHAT is wrong. This doesn’t sound all that terrible to me. In fact, the alternative sounds far more fascist than it does.
You are painting Dawkins in as ugly colors as you can possibly muster in order to portray him as despicable and deserving of exposure.
AFV,
“a movement that would see organized religion banned completely in the coming generation(s)!”
This is one of the most absurd things I have heard in a long time. First of all, atheists are vastly outnumbered and could never pass such legislation. Second, the constitution explicitly denies such legislation.
Some more fear mongering and nothing more.
The state has no business in my bedroom (see Lawrence v. Texas), but all the business in the world to be in my living room, regulating what I teach my children. Am I the only one that senses an inconsistency here? Oh I get it — I suppose the state should hold the rights of two consenting adults as more sacred than the long established societal tradition of the parent-child teaching relationship.
Yes, I suppose, Jeff, that Big Brother knows best.
Here is my real question:
Why would a line of thought that so thoroughly trusts a child’s informed decision (which, by the way, I see as a valid argument) so vehemently mistrust the wisdom and ability of a child’s own parent in choosing what to teach? Let’s be consistent…
Jeff G, I am only quoting was Dawkins says, which is that he feels he knows better than I do how to raise my kids. Interesting that you didn’t answer the question directly, which is: do you think Dawkins knows better than you how to teach your kids?
I equally don’t believe Dawkins has any business telling me how NOT to raise my kids. Simply put: it’s none of his business. I would strongly oppose laws saying that Dawkins’ kids must be taught a particular religion, whether he likes it or not. That is called tolerance and respect for others’ beliefs. Dawkins does not show one iota of tolerance toward my beliefs: they should be blotted out and my kids should not be taught my beliefs. Sorry, Jeff G, this is fascism. I find it interesting that you cannot even spot the distinction.
Let me be clear, again,
I do not agree with Dawkins that parent should not be able to teach their religion to their children. To be honest, I’m not sure that this is exactly what Dawkins is himself arguing for. What I see as his primary target is the dogmatism with which children are indoctrinated in a religion. Inasmuch as this is his only target, I am sympathetic. But I don’t think that this really is his only target.
What my point is, is that the views of Dawkins are not as “scary” as Geoff and others try to paint them.
Here is how I see it: A child can only come to be “informed” by way of indoctrination. It is precisely because a child is NOT informed that the law and others do get to intervene in the parent-child relationship whereas they are not allowed to in the relationship between two informed and consenting adults. This points seems only too obvious.
Nevertheless, the inevitability of indoctrination does not entail that all forms or methods of indoctrination are on equal footing with each other. I personally suspect, contra Dawkins, that religious indoctrination, in SOME forms, is at actually pretty good. I always thought Dawkins argument against calling children “catholic” or “mormon” was interesting, pretty true, but largely irrelevant. If a child is raised in a Mormon family, what is wrong with calling the child “mormon”? I don’t get it.
Dawkins response to such a question is that granting that a child is of some denomination goes merely beyond identifying them with some tradition. Instead, it includes the facilitation and cultivation of prejudices and dogmatism. Again, I think that prejudices and a certain degree of dogmatism is pretty much inevitable. What Dawkins sees as being the main problem is how children are brought up to think that it is not only tolerable but morally required of a person to ignore what has been conclusively demonstrated by science. Dawkins objects to the moral dogmatism which is inculcated in children. I worry about this as well, but like I said, I think Dawkins views are simply too strong.
Geoff,
Where did Dawkins say that? I didn’t answer your question because it was REALLY misleading in nature.
Of course I don’t think that Dawkins knows better than I do about how to raise my children. But this is NOT what he claims.
Here is a better, and more accurate question: Do you think that any single person knows how to raise the some other person’s children better than the latter does? (Answer this question.)
The answer to me seems to be an obvious “yes.” The problem is that each and every parent would basically answer your question “no” while answering my question “yes.” The two are in conflict with one another.
It is for this reason that the most fair and charitable reading of Dawkins is that he claims to know how you should not raise you children, a claim which is closer to my question rather than yours.
“I equally don’t believe Dawkins has any business telling me how NOT to raise my kids.”
So if a parent starves or beats their children it’s none or anybody else’s business? C’mon.
Now of course beating and starving is not what Dawkins is talking about. My point is that you don’t simply get to claim “none of his business, and that’s that!” The real debate is whether religion, all religions or all forms of each religion all actually fall under the heading of “none of his business” or not. This seems like a pretty open question to me, and you seem to simply refuse to engage it.
“That is called tolerance and respect for others’ beliefs.” You are again missing the point, which is this: Are we supposed to tolerate a parent indoctrinating their children with absolutely any beliefs we can come up with? I think that it is possible that we have good reason to legally prohibit many beliefs from being taught to children. But I don’t think legislation is what Dawkins is arguing about. I think that he is arguing about what should be morally encouraged and discouraged, and there is no doubt in my mind that we should morally discourage parents from indoctrinating their children with some beliefs. (i.e. Racism, sexism, fascism, anti-intellectualism, etc.) I agree with Dennett in that I don’t think that all forms of all religions fall under this category of moral discouragement. Nevertheless, I agree with Dawkins to a certain extent that some forms of religion should fall under such a category. Don’t you?
Your right, Dawkins doesn’t tolerate you beliefs. But this is very different from tolerating you and your right to believe what you want. Dawkins believes that religion should freely be rejected by everybody, by way of persuasion. He does not advocate any kind of legal action at all. If you fail to see the difference between this and fascism/nazism then I am completely shocked.
But Jeff, anytime the state gets involved in matters of the intellect, you have fascism. In other words, if your view is that the state(or anyone other than the parent, for that matter) should be the ultimate protectorate of a child’s intellect, you are flirting with fascism in my book.
Would you be willing to accept the argument that dogmatism and certain kinds of indoctrination are simply a negative externality, one which is simply not troublesome enough to disturb the sacred nature of the parent-child relationship?
The point in question is what Dawkins means by “society stepping in.” If he is talking about legal intervention in all cases of religious upbringing, then he is indeed a full-blown fascist. But I don’t see him as advocating this at all.
mpb,
see #15
I should also point out that Geoff’s post accused far more people than Dawkins and John of being fascist Nazis. The fact is that VERY few “modern-day secular fanatics” advocate legal action. Again, my main point is that this post is simply fear-mongering.
So if someone thought it was in their children’s best interest to be taught that polygamy should be followed and that satanic ritual was the way to go, you’d all support his right to teach that to his children? Riiiiight.
Okay, let’s pose a thought experiment:
Suppose that a family decides to raise their child in the religion “X”. Here is what religion X teaches:
1) All non-X-ists do not have souls, but are mere animals.
2) Eating or drinking of anything is succumbing to the lusts of the flesh and MUST be avoided at all costs.
3) Eating or drinking is unnecessary for survival, as is sleep.
4) Since the body is worthless, it is important to mutilate it in any way possible.
and so on.
Is it really “nobody else’s business” if parents raise their children this way? Isn’t it imperative that society intervene not only by way of moral discouragement, but by way of legal action? Do you call such action fascism?
If ‘society stepping in’ is not the state, then what is it? What other mechanism exists? And what gives that mechanism the right to interfere with the parent_child relationship? I’m open, but I can’t help but see this as slightly veiled fascism
MPB,
I already said, moral discouragement, the same mechanism by which society steps in to disallow the teaching of racism, sexism, etc.
C’mon people. I know that you don’t like atheism, but you can at least try to see things from their perspective a little bit.
That is, in fact, the same mechanism by which society discourages the teaching of FASCISM, is it not?
Queno it happens every day-negative externality.
Jeff-nice strawman, couldn’t have made a better one. Obviously where there is physical harm involved the state gets involved’ rightly so. Let’s keep it to the intellectual/spiritual. Why should I value anyone elses judgment over the parents in spiritual/intellectual matters?
Sorry for the lag-im on a blackberry. I’m not stupid, I am a few comments behind
MPB,
You must have missed the point entirely, for the parent did not inflict any harm upon the child at all. Rather the child had been indoctrinated to do it himself. If your answer is “yes” then you have just become a fascist by your own definition.
In other words, it was not a strawman. It was simply a device to show that we all advocate the state intervening on the parent-child relationship when it comes to some beliefs. Furthermore, I have also shown that society steps in to intervene by way of moral discouragement all the time. We don’t see any of this as fascist.
The question, then is not whether the state or society should intervene on the relationship or not. We have already established that it should, without any doubt. The question is when? Nobody in this thread has addressed this question at all.
mpb, not to make Jeff’s point for him, because I don’t agree with him, but circumcision is a case where the state allows someone to do physical harm to another in the name of religion.
HP,
That is NOT my point at all. People doing physical harm to other people is a question which I have not brought up, because it is a whole other question altogether. The question is what beliefs do we allow parent to indoctrinate their children with?
My problem with Dawkins is that he talks about how pernicious religion is but the only reason he seems to give is that it’s demonstrably false (which most religions are not), or at least that it’s not reasonable to believe it (which may be true). He needs to demonstrate that, in general, believing demonstrably false or unreasonable things is bad. Why is it bad to believe in the cosmic teapot? From an entirely naturalistic perspective, what inherent value does truth hold?
The problems he’s going to run into are 1) if there is some negative consequence from believing unreasonable things generally, science lacks the tools to demonstrate that unequivocally, in my opinion and 2) science can’t deal in good and bad. What if believing in the cosmic teapot makes people happy by any measure of happiness you want to use, but correlates with shorter lifespans? Who’s to say that belief in the cosmic teapot should be discouraged through any avenue be it through state coercion or personal crusades? Science cannot answer which of measurable happiness and longevity is more important.
I’m ok with people being personally opposed to the teaching of things that have demonstrable negative consequences, as far as the term “negative consequences” is commonly understood. I oppose the teaching of children religious tenets that lead them to become suicide bombers. I don’t know if the state should police this, but I would prefer that people not teach their children those kinds of things.
It is a strawman. It is an entirely unrealistic situation. At any rate, under our current legal framework, if the state did step in it would be to interfere in the individual’s/child’s harming of him or herself, and a court would have no business adjudicating any order against the parents on the basis of their beliefs alone (based on my own understanding of the law).
My original question, which I think is still unanswered, is why can’t those who subscribe to this line of thinking trust parents with the responsibility of teaching children as much as they trust children to educate themselves about religion. Why is your proposed framework any different than the Khymer Rouge separating children from their parents to indoctrinate them according to the values of the state?
I’m all for ‘moral discouragement’ as long as it is kept within the bounds of the free flow of ideas. I seriously question whether Dawkins or anyone else is willing to stop there?
I am home with a two year old right now and am not doing my best thinking…I’m going to have to leave it there for now. Besides, I have some serious indoctrination to do tonight…
The question is what beliefs do we allow parent to indoctrinate their children with?
My answer: any beliefs that the majority of people in a society do not consider to have demonstrably negative consequences for the child or society that are drastic enough to warrant invasion of privacy. It’s a mouthful, but it works for me.
Jeff G, I find it fascinating but that after having lost your faith you would spend so much time hanging around an LDS-oriented web site like ours. You are always welcome, and I hope someday you will find your way back. Perhaps that is why you keep on spending your time here. Perhaps there is still a desire to plant some seeds of faith.
In the meantime, I will paraphrase Gandhi in saying: “the best way to fight evil is to bring it to the light of day.” The best way to fight people like Dawkins is simply to bring his sayings to light. Thinking and charitable people will eventually reject his thoughts.
Geoff (#32), I imagine Jeff G. hangs around because we have such interesting discussions!
Jeff G. (#21), note there’s a difference in how people respond to Stephen Jay Gould, an “ecumenical atheist” (if I may be permitted to coin a term), versus how people respond to Dawkins, a sectarian atheist. Everyone likes Gould … except the sectarian atheists. That pretty much explains things.
Jeff G. (#6), I wasn’t really trying to stir up a Santa debate, just noting how sectarian atheists habitually require things of believers they don’t require of themselves. There’s a term for that approach, I think.
The best way to fight people like Dawkins is simply to bring his sayings to light.
I recommend the Point of Inquiry podcasts (available on iTunes). There are occasional over-the-top or condescending statements, but in general I don’t think the atheist/humanists are as scary as they are sometimes made out to be; often times they make a lot of sense.
#9 – I wasn’t limiting the thing to the U-S-of-A, but in other countries where they don’t have thsi sort of thing in their ‘constitutions’ such as most of Europe, or Canada for instance, and perhaps you don’t care about those countries, but isolationism never worked anywasy, adn remember as likening the scriptures unto ourselves would imply that you migth want to consider how the Lamanites put to detah every Nephite that would not deny the Christ!!
Interesting, Dawkins calls people of faith child abusers for teaching their kids to believe in God and Jeff G doesn’t bat an eye, but if Geoff calls Dawkins a fascist, this is terrible rhetoric.
Poppycock.
I mean honestly, if one switched the words “atheist” and “secular” for “religious” and “Christian” I don’t see how this would change anything at all.
Well in one sense I agree. But that’s because I think both equally bad. I wouldn’t want my kids indoctrinated to Evangelical Christian beliefs any more than I’d want them indoctrinated to atheism. Clearly there are Christians who would like such things though and I think such ought be fought against. But I think the same true of atheists pushing for it. What’s sad is that history has shown us both.
I agree, btw, that Dawkins never says what some are saying he does. But it also true that some less careful and probably less intelligent devotees of Dawkins are not so careful. It seems undeniable that Elton John is being an idiot when he says things like the above. But it also seems undeniable that Elton John is expressing a relatively common view among some groups.
Okay, I’m back.
Tom (29), I don’t disagree with a single thing said here. Very nicely stated.
MPB (30), It would be a strawman if we were debating the nature or merits of the religious beliefs which most people actually do teach their children. Such, however was not the debate we were engaged in. Rather, we were debating whether or not the state ever could or should intervene in the parent-child relationship. It doesn’t matter whether the example I gave was realistic or not, the answer is still the same.
Your telling me that the state should not hold the parents responsible for teaching (not just believing mind you) their child such horrible things? Are you kidding me? It’s not what the parents believes that makes them so horrible, it’s that they teach such beliefs to their child who is not informed in a way to make their own judgments.
As to your other question, my answer is “I don’t care.” Dawkins position is not my own. I just get tired of people hiding behind the idea that it’s somehow nobody else’s business what they teach their children. It clearly can be other people’s business. Dawkins is ambivalent upon a number of issues here, and I doubt that my feelings square with his. For instance, does he mean legal intervention or not? Does he mean in the case of all religion? A single religion? Or merely a single aspect of some religion? If he means all religion, or all of a single religious tradition, I simply cannot agree with him. Nevertheless, I do think that it is possible that some, maybe even many aspects of some religious traditions should not be forced upon children.
This brings me a major difference which you do not seem to appreciate. The difference between indoctrination and education. Presenting religious material to a child as “this is what some people believe” is very different from presenting religious material to a child as the absolute truth which must be believed under any circumstances whatsoever. I fully advocate the former while strongly objecting to the latter.
“I seriously question whether Dawkins or anyone else is willing to stop there?”
Aw, but that is the question! Everybody is so eager to call Dawkins a fascist while not even knowing what he is and is not advocating.
Geoff (32),
I hope “fascinating” is not a euphemism for “frustrating” or “annoying.” 😉
To be honest, I would not mind at all to regain my faith. I remain, however, extremely skeptical of such a prospect. Some of the issues which I have seem insuperable in my mind. But hey, you never know.
As to why I do spend my time frequenting Mormon blogs:
1) I will always consider many of you my friends whom I greatly enjoying debating issues with.
2) The exchange of ideas allows me to refine my own position.
3) I still find Mormonism fascinating, and I do know quite a bit about it.
I do not interact with the ‘nacle near as much as I used to though. Many of the topics just don’t interest me any more. Nevertheless, these M* threads always seem to press my buttons in just the right (or is it wrong?) way.
I guess I will always consider myself a Mormon of sorts and this means that I’ll probably never be able to leave it completely alone. I find this form of “not leaving it alone” far better than any of those irritating “ex-mo” sites. So much heat at those with so little light.
Matt in 37,
Oh, c’mon man. I have repeatedly claimed that if Dawkins is calling all forms of religious teaching or indoctrination “abuse” then I strongly disagree with him. Nevertheless, just because something is not “abuse” doesn’t make it good or even okay. Many aspects of religion might be bad for children to be strongly and uncritically indoctrinated with, and the religious overreaction with terms such a fascists and Nazis is just flat out missing the point altogether. There is an open question which Dawkins brings up here and it is simply not being addressed by the religious.
Clark,
I agree.
I have a reply to Dave, but I keeps saying that my comment is invalid. What gives?
Jeff G. and what is that open question? It’s wrapped in so much hyperbole I can’t seem to pick it out clearly. All I see Dawkins doing is making a statement, not stating a question.
Seriously, the whole “religion as the root of all evil” concept is pretty stupid.
I guess I can see the same reasoning Dawkins uses to be similar to the reasoning evangelicals use to argue that children shouldn’t be raised in a family headed by parents of the same sex.
By the way, Tom’s “cosmic teapot” is a fine example of how religion can be both benign and pernicious. Religions have innocuous beliefs about teapots and whether God lives on a star or a planet, but the same religion also may teach a pernicious doctrine that certain humans were cursed before they came to earth. The latter doctrine/belief directly causes harm and should not be passed down from generation to generation – which is I think what Dawkins is saying.
By the way guys, the indoctrination last night? Oh, it was AWESOME. I really got some good brainwashing in with my two year old. Textbook indoctrination. You should have been there.
Jeff I was going to stay away today but I can’t. I’ll have more later…
Did ya’ll get to see the time “debate” between Dawkins and Collins?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html
I thought both were very civil and have a greater respect for both due to it.
I think something which was key here is that both genuinely respected the other. At least thats the way time editted it…
Matt, thanks for linking that. A few thoughts:
1)This is from Dawkins: “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.” I think that’s right, except there is one religion that has proposed a believable and comprehensible definition of God. In all my searches, none of the other religions had anything even close. But when I and Mr. Dawkins someday see that God, it will still be “a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible” than He seems today. It is good to note that even the most virulent atheist will, in a private moment, admit his insignificance compared to Elohim.
2)Notice how Dawkins is filled with anger and scorn, even in this debate with one of the world’s greatest Christian scientists? Fundamentalists are “clowns.” Collins needs to calm him down and point out how his intolerance will not help his cause. By their fruits you shall know them.
3)I have read Collins’ book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press).” I highly recommend it. It is obvious Collins has given some serious thought to the debate with atheists. He comes out the winner, imho.
Seriously, why does it keep saying “invalid comment”? It’s not letting me post again.
How is “raising our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” any less brain washing than what Dawkins supposedly advocates? To suppose that we can ever have just plain ol’ scriptures which are not mingled with the philosophies of men is a bygone delusion.
Jeff, I never claimed Dawkins was brain washing. I merely stated that I wanted to raise my children according to the dictates of my own conscience. As to the scriptures being mingled with the philosophies of men, you are correct. However, I regard the words of Apostles and Prophets to be of greater weight than those of Dawkins.
Your idea of teaching them “correct principles” so as to governed themselves is exactly what these men also advocate. They claim that your “correct principles” are exactly what are so harmful. I should also point out that the idea that religious parents passively let their children choose for themselves is a crock.
Interesting. So I agree with them, but only their princicples are correct? Finally, parents can and will exert some influence over their children, but, in the end (when they are of age), the children must choose for themselves what they will or will not do. Thus, I believe the statement is true.
Matt,
I agree that Dawkins overblown rhetoric makes it all too easy for the religious to either ignore him, mock him or simply misunderstand him.
The open question is this: Since society should intervene to one extent or another in the parent-child relationship sometimes, when does religious indoctrination count as one of these times?
Jeff: Since society should intervene to one extent or another in the parent-child relationship sometimes, when does religious indoctrination count as one of these times?
The answer is simple: when the majority of people in a society find that the demonstrable negative consequences of the indoctrination are drastic enough that they warrant an invasion of privacy and suspension of the right to free speech.
#47
It sounds to me that it is more like Dawkins simply has no patient whatsoever for religion and its adherents rather than that he is completely angry and scornful toward them. This is why I like Dennett over Dawkins.
Jeff G, regarding #50, it might be wise to take the same position on Dawkins that I take whenever Pat Robertson says something that makes conservative Christians look stupid: his arguments only hurt the cause. It’s the same thing I say about Republicans who are nativist regarding immigration: their arguments only hurt the cause. I think it is dangerous and wrong-headed to defend an angry polemicist like Dawkins and, yes, Elton John. They only make the more reasonable atheists like yourself look bad.
Jeff G, regarding #48, you will not be allowed by our filter to post regularly until you stop defending atheists. It’s a special M* feature. :)))))
But if it’s any consolation, I get blocked all the time too. We’ll hopefully be fixing bugs like that someday.
I am disturbed by the resemblance of this discussion to the discussions of Mormonism by many evangelicals — it is an evil to be caricatured in screeds and spotlighted as the source of impending Doom, but never something to be examined and understood.
I finished Dennett’s most recent book last spring and found it to be both enlightening and refreshingly sensible in its insistence that there need not be two entirely different and inconsistent ways of looking at the world. I’ve read several of Dawkins’ books. While I’m impressed with his thinking and ideas in evolutionary science, I’m less impressed with his insistent ignorance of spirituality.
Still, before vilifying, I’d recommend actually reading. Admittedly, it takes a fair amount of the self-gratification out of the exercise, but it does tend to lead to understanding.
That should be worth something to the likes of us, right?
I’m starting to really, really mad at this site for saying my comments are ‘invalid” for no apparent reason!
Tom,
That seems like a decent answer to the question. For more decent than “What a fascist! I’ll raise my children however I want!”
Brian,
Again, you are giving into an all-or-nothing reading. Nobody is claiming that you have to raise your kids just like they do. Just saying that not all forms of indoctrination of equal doesn’t entail that only his form is the right one.
Geoff,
I think the ‘fruits’ line is a low-blow.
Dawkins should stand or fall on one conversation on even one tendency in all his conversations. Nor should atheism stand or fall on Dawkins behavior.
But since you brought it up, which has produced more fruit in terms of tangibility and quantity, science or religion? Maybe the ‘fruit’ line plays into Dawkins’ hands a bit?
Geoff,
I think I figured it out. If I use the word “c*h*e*a*p” I think it sees me as spam. (I had to spell it funny just to publish this post.) Perhaps it would be nice if in the comments policy it listed the words which will not pass such a test.
Geoff in 53,
See I don’t see Dawkins as the atheist Pat Robertson. I think that what Dawkins says is mostly right to some extent, its just that his overblown rhetoric and utter lack of patience over shadow the legitimate points which he raises. I think that his own way of engaging the issue not only hurts the atheistic cause (if, in fact there even is one), but also hurts his own cause of presenting good arguments.
Jeff G, re: #57, see my #53. I really don’t want to start a debate on the validity of atheism, given that this is a site for religious believers. Let’s just leave it at this: my conversion story is similar to CS Lewis and Francis Collins: I was an agnostic/critic of religion most of my adult life until I was “Surprised by Joy.” I have read many, many books by atheists and can recite all of their arguments by memory. There is no argument you, Dawkins or any other atheist could give me that I haven’t already heard and considered before. My personal feeling, based on my study of the history of science and my understanding of the plan of salvation and the relative roles in the eternities of science and religion is that there is more long-term good done in a single LDS ward than in a gathering of the world’s 100,000 greatest atheists. And, it is worth pointing out that many of the world’s greatest scientists have been religious and Christians. So, your question really is not that relevant.
Yeah,
I wasn’t trying to change the subject. Only to point out that the fruits-line just isn’t very useful in these debates.
I am surprised to here that you were/are so well acquainted with atheist literature. I am surprised because your interpretation of their positions doesn’t seem to reflect such an acquaintance very well. If your post was aimed solely at Elton John, I wouldn’t have had much anything to disagree with. But such was not the case.
Jeff G, you should consider the possibility that as a former non-believer I have known the heart of the beast that is secular humanism, and I consider it a very, very ugly beast indeed and very evil and short-sighted. I have many atheist friends who are good, upstanding people and a benefit to society. But I have also known many of them who are in effect nihilists, which is what I consider Dawkins to be. The BoM warns pretty effectively about that.
Geoff,
I would not presume to minimize your perspective or experiences. Nor to question the validity of either.
But just as an ex-Mormon is not the first place I’d recommend going to find out about Mormonism, an ex-atheist/agnostic is not the first place I’d recommend going to find out about atheism/agnosticism.
Seth R, I would agree that I’m certainly not the first place to go to find out about atheism/agnosticism. There are many other better sources. But that is not my claim. I provide one of many different perspectives. Like everybody else, my views are colored by my life experiences and learning. They will be true to some people and false to others. But that is true about any subject of discussion.
The real issue here is: are Elton John and Dawkins right or wrong in their attacks on religion? Is Dawkins’ view that the state should raise children, not their parents, right or wrong? I say wrong, wrong and wrong again. And, yes, such views are typical of a certain segment of the atheist/secular humanist movement. I think the BoM warns pretty strongly against such views as well.
Right, but my point is that we have little reason to believe that
“the state should raise children, not their parents”
is Dawkins’ actual position.
He does not say anything about “the state”.
He does not suggest that society should actively raise children.
What is worse – nihilists or racists or jihadists? Because more evil and carnage has been committed in the name of God than has atheism or secular humanism. Dawkins has a point. Religions need to extirpate the dangerous dogma that encourages its adherents to commit atrocities in the name of God like the September 11th attacks.
This: extirpate the dangerous dogma…
…would be a cool tagline.
“So if someone thought it was in their children’s best interest to be taught that polygamy should be followed and that satanic ritual was the way to go, you’d all support his right to teach that to his children? Riiiiight.”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would support that right (assuming the ritual doesn’t involve harming or killing anyone). I certainly would prefer that to what Mr. Dawkins is proposing.
And what is Mr. Dawkins proposing?
Not really Melanie.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot.
All secularists or atheists. With a secular/atheist agenda.
Political atheists often seem to have this magical view of the world where people who aren’t religious somehow don’t commit atrocities.
Dawkins, I believe, responds to this charge by claiming: “yes, well, you see, Hitler and Stalin really were religious after all – what they did was create a religion of communism or the mythological German state.”
Rubbish. Such a definition of “religion” is so broad as to render the word meaningless. Religion simply becomes a codeword for any thought patterns Dawkins doesn’t like.
At any rate, Dawkins is going to have an impossible time proving that, as bad as human history has been, it would have been better off without religion. Perhaps religion did amplify the worst impulses in human nature (as Dawkins argues). Or perhaps religion was actually a restraining influence and prevented the atrocities from becoming as bad as they would have without religion’s morally restraining influence?
Who knows?
Dawkins doesn’t. I’m pretty sure of that. He’s just shooting-off his mouth and making wild guesses that can never be proven one way or the other.
“And what is Mr. Dawkins proposing?”
You’ve been through the rounds on this issue with others, Jeff, and I don’t wish to repeat that conversatioin. But unlike you, the comment about society “stepping in” to stop indoctrination he finds specious scares me. It would seem we’d be entering a Brave New World.
I sort of agree with you. If finding some teaching “specious” is the only reason which we have for society’s intervention. However, I don’t think Dawkins is leaving it at this either. I think that he sees the religious indoctrination of children as being harmful to the child as well as those around them, rather than being merely “specious.”
While I do not believe all religious indoctrination to be harmful to the child or society, I do believe some of it to be. And if such is the case, shouldn’t society try to discourage such indoctrination in some way?
Not really, Seth R. Religious conservatives often seem to have a “magical view” of the world as black and white. For example, I did not say that _all_ atrocities were committed in the name of religion, but that many _more_ atrocities have been committed in God’s name than in the name of atheism. (Btw, I’ll give you Stalin and Pol Pot, but not Hitler).
In any event, it’s clear that many religious beliefs across the spectrum of organized (and unorganized) religions incite violence and mayhem. I haven’t read Dawkins’ book, but I agree that society can’t afford to allow children to be indocrinated with violence and hate – regardless of whether the underlying motivation is religious or something else.
Well Melanie, that’s hardly surprising seeing as how religion has been around a few millenia longer than secular atheism. It’s had a lot more chances to mess up.
You’re hardly being fair here.
And yes, Hitler advocated a secular nationalistic ideology that actually had almost nothing to do with religion. He never was all that religious.
The French Revolution’s bloodbath was also a purely secular affair.
And by the way, I’m not a “religious conservative” by any stretch, as anyone who is familiar with my posting history is well aware.
Just further proof Godwin’s law is alive and well. … And that it took just two sentences into the initial post in the thread.
“Secular atheism” has always existed, Seth (Alma 30:45, etc). It’s just that in past millenia it was a taboo world view which could not be openly espoused. This is still the case in some very conservative muslim countries. Of all the things in the world that concern me, the possibility that secular atheism will be thrust upon us by force of law does not exactly loom large in my mind.
Re: #72
I think the key difference between you and I, Jeff G., is that I’m not willing to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt, and you seem to be bending over backwards to point out what he’s not necessarily advocating. I think the problem with your position is that because Dawkins isn’t saying what he’d have done, we’re left to our own imaginations about how a state would “unindoctrinate” or “reindoctrinate” kids. And my cursory understanding of history tells me when states try to “reindoctrinate,” it’s usually by coersive means. Given that history, perhaps the onus is not on us to figure out what Mr. Dawkins doesn’t mean; but instead, it’s up to Mr. Dawkins to tell us he does mean.
What I am doing is following the principle of charitable interpretation by interpreting his comments in a way that they are as true as possible. It is only by doing this that we will responsibly engage people who we disagree with.
Anybody can give someone a reading which depicts them as making a really strong statement and then reject them for making too strong of a statement, but what have we really accomplished in doing this? Nothing other than avoided the issue entirely, and this is exactly what I criticize the main post of doing.
“I interpret Dawkins in such a way that makes him a fascist, and then I reject him for being a fascist. QED.”
I should also point out that the reason why we hate Nazi’s so much is primarily, but not exclusively, for their genocide and attempts at world domination. Dawkins advocates neither of these. So while it may be possible (but not likely) that Dawkins is a fascist, he is certainly not a Nazi. Honestly, that’s the biggest give away that the principle of charitable interpretation has gone by the board.
“It is only by doing this that we will responsibly engage people who we disagree with.”
That might be a more persuasive point if you disagreed with him, Jeff.
As I have said no less than five times in this thread, I do disagree with him.
Perhaps you could interpret me in a charitable way as well.
Jeff, while I’m pretty much in agreement with you on Dawkins, I’m not sure that’s the ultimate issue. Dawkins is no fool. He’s careful in what he says even though I do think he unnecessarily causes conflict that ultimately hurts his movement rather than helps him. But that just a difference of opinion on strategy.
But to me the whole Dawkins issue is a bit of a red herring. There are people like Elton John (as you agreed earlier) who do take these stronger views. For instance while I love reading Science Blogs I’m frequently shocked at how anti-religious many bloggers are. Often they go for the easy fish from naive fundamentalists but then make asides as if these were typical of religion. It seems hard to get too upset at Christians who worry about atheist extremists when so many atheists do exactly the same thing about Christians.
Still one wishes there were more understanding and less hyperbole on these matters.
For the record, while I’ve not read Dawkins book I’ve read many interviews with him over the years – I don’t find his attempt to make secularist fascism into religion in disguise persuasive in the least. It’s one of his biggest weaknesses in his presentation in my opinion. Yet it is a key issue in the debate. (I noticed that South Park’s two episode treatment of Dawkins focused in on this with a bit of lampooning – Dawkins attributes what seems to be a human quality as caused by religious belief rather than human nature)
While I know that this thread is pretty much dead I had to bring this to Geoff and everybody else’s attention:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2460338,00.html
Now THAT is way too much in my opinion. I see these efforts of his as a serious offense against the separation of church and state.
Re: #65
Well what does he actually say?
It’s true that the term, “the state” is not used, but what other vaguely plausible interpretation is there? If it doesn’t mean the state, then who does it mean? Only the state has any authority at all to ‘step in’.
The question is, from where is that authority derived?
“As I have said no less than five times in this thread, I do disagree with him. Perhaps you could interpret me in a charitable way as well.”
You’ll have to forgive me. You seemed to agree with him–at least partially–with this comment: “While I do not believe all religious indoctrination to be harmful to the child or society, I do believe some of it to be. And if such is the case, shouldn’t society try to discourage such indoctrination in some way?” Perhaps you can see that whatever nuance of disagreement you’re advancing might get lost on the less “charitable” to Dawkins’ position.
And as for charity, there would be very little need if Dawkins would just come right out and say what he’s proposing. And until he does, I’m not sure why it behooves me to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially where his comments could reasonably be interpreted to create a radical change in social structure. Perhaps you can tell me why it is my responsibilty to read charitably, and not his to be clear on his intentions. I’m not the one writing the books and advancing the theories.
Here is a great post on what exactly Dawkins does and does not have in mind:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/divided_by_a_co.html