A California Ruling
by BradfordA federal judge has ruled that a history teacher at a Southern California public high school violated the First Amendment when he called creationism “superstitious nonsense” in a classroom lecture. The judge, James Selna, issued the ruling after a 16-month legal battle between a student, Chad Farnan, and his former teacher, James Corbett. Mr. Farnan’s lawsuit said Mr. Corbett had made more than 20 statements that were disparaging to Christians and their beliefs. The judge found that Mr. Corbett’s reference to creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Courts have interpreted the clause as prohibiting government employees from displaying religious hostility. Mr. Corbett teaches at Capistrano Valley High School.
HT: Clare
May 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
There is a little sanity in CA after all.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 6, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It is a sad day when stating an obvious truth is illegal.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 6, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Of course, we know that creationism is superstitious nonsense.
The truth is an absolute defense.
Comment by terrycvn — May 6, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
The situation is more nuanced than that.
The teacher is a government employee , government employees are limited in things they can say even if what they say is true.
Not all religions can be true. That means there will be an abundance of wrong thinking. The constitution guarantees that people have the freedom to think and believe wrong things.
They have the freedom to explore for themselves what is true about spiritual matters and not have the government decide for them.
The government should have limitations on what domains it can be a judge. The court of public dialogue is the better court to decide these matters, not school boards nor the federal judiciary.
Constitutional rights entail that people also have the freedom to believe falsehoods. A policy against free thought and toward thought control can only lead to suspect outcomes. It would be unwise for the Government to get in the business of policing thoughts.
Perhaps it is a little premature for school teachers to be declaring "God doesn't exist nor did He create humans". Formally speaking, science hasn't falsified those notions, not even close.
So even from a scientific perspective, it is premature for a teacher to be imposing his religious prejudices on kids. He could be wrong you know.
He's free to teach science and Darwinism, but a government employee suggesting that Darwinism and Atheism are the final word is way over the top.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 6, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Quoting from a link supplied by terrycvn:
What factual circumstance provides a compelling argument that God could not be a creator and how does one make this argument without violating the parameter of the establishment clause?
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 9:19 am
May 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
If the teacher was referring to creationism in the YEC sense, then he was simply stating a fact. Science has shown way beyond reasonable doubt that such creationism is indeed superstitious nonsense. I wonder (well, not really) if the teacher had been sued if he had similarly characterized cargo cults, or rain dances, or the belief in Atum.
Comment by Raevmo — May 7, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Actually, from the sceintific perspective, he's fine, since science always considers an explanation false until some evidence has been found to support it.
The existence of God isn't a subject public schools should address, so the only reason to bring it up in a public school class, science or not, is to proselytize. And he got slapped down for it, just as he should have. He didn't get slapped down for making a scientific error.
Comment by don provan — May 7, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
If promoting religion is a violation of the establishment clause then debunking it should be off limits because it raises the religion issue but only allows for one sided views on it.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You're wrong, Raevmo.
It still doesn't make it "nonsense" and it doesn't make it "superstitious".
Many might feel it very rational to believe in purpose to life. They might also feel that given their ability to have thoughts be about other things that intention truly exists and that materialism isn't correct. That God does exist, and that if He does exist He has the ability to create as He wishes.
So the supertitious comment is incorrect because he would have to establish that the beliefs indeed are based on superstition.
Also, what is beyond reasonable doubt wrt findings from the scientific method? Is it beyond reasonable doubt that all scientific findings are tentative? That metaphysical assumptions have to be accepted to provide flooring for science?
More importantly… the teacher was being a jerk to kids in the class and beliefs that they might hold very dearly.
Leave it to disturbing folk like Todd Berkebile, terrycvn and Raevmo to defend his actions. Because that's what it is…. disturbing.
An adult, flaunting his role to bash the beliefs of children. To hop over that empirical line to jump into theological matters to mock their beliefs.
Good job guys, I knew I could count on you. Well, not so much terrycvn… I don't know you.
Comment by GringoRoyale — May 7, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Always?
From the scientific perspective does it assume human perception to be false since we don't know nor can we test how the extended world is truly represented in the mind.
Science disregards final causality…. but do scientists disregard final causality when they are proposing theories?
Does he know that the weight of his knowledge is enough to justify the way he acted to the children? Can science put that on a scale and see if the two even out?
Comment by GringoRoyale — May 7, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
And obviously it not only should be off limits, it is.
By the way, I'm not sure "one sided" is the correct term. The problem here is that it can be considered government sponsored.
Comment by don provan — May 7, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Gringo:
Sorry, but it does. Overwhelming evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old. The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is nonsense and based on superstition.
True, but that believe is not the same as YEC creationism, which is demonstrably false.
A jerk in the same way as parents that have to admit to their children that Santa Claus doesn't exist, contrary to the children's dearly held beliefs.
Comment by Raevmo — May 7, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Science only comments on "so far", never "always".
"Final causality" is a concept only for people claiming to know final causes. Science has no such arrogance.
I wouldn't now, but the problem appears to have been that he didn't.
No, not unless you gave it measurable parameters for determining "justified".
Comment by don provan — May 7, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Wrong again. Science considers explanations to be parsimoniously and tentatively accepted until falsified.
Scientism presumes that things which lack evidence are false or nonexistent.
Comment by chunkdz — May 7, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Ravemo:
Wrong.
Yes.
The term ‘nonsense’ is a pejorative term used to express contempt.
Tell us, as a scientist, why do you think the sentence “The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is nonsense” is more appropriate for a teacher to make than the sentence, “The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is not supported by science.”
From your own link: “The word is often used pejoratively to refer to supposedly irrational beliefs of others, and its precise meaning is therefore subjective.”
Teachers should not be preaching to their students with pejorative, subjective judgment calls. A good teacher would know how to inform his class that scientific studies have contradicted YEC without showing contempt for some of his students. Apparently, this teacher was using his classroom to proselytize: “Mr. Farnan’s lawsuit said Mr. Corbett had made more than 20 statements that were disparaging to Christians and their beliefs.”
Because of the NA Movemet, I predict we will see more of this kind of stuff in the future.
Comment by MikeGene — May 8, 2009 @ 9:17 am
May 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I listened to a recorded rant of teacher James Corbett. He is clearly hostile in a completely non-academic manner. Quoting:
The point is not whether you agree or disagree with the sentence but rather its appropriateness in a classroom. This guy gets paid by people he belittles. Usually in life you get fired for that.
Comment by Bradford — May 8, 2009 @ 9:40 am
May 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Mike Gene wrote:
Good point. I would also argue that that this approach to teaching tends to be coercive rather than persuasive. When you ridicule people you are attempting to make them conform to a point of view rather than change their point of view. A change of mind is voluntary and volitional, it is internal vs. external. And, usually it requires time, patience as well friendship or kindness, something the new atheists show little aptitude for.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 8, 2009 @ 10:30 am
May 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Dawkins says that calling a child a Christian is child abuse.
But apparently ridiculing them until they hurt is "effective".
Comment by chunkdz — May 8, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Well, no, Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating a child into a religion, whether Christian or not, should be considered child abuse. He uses "calling a child a Christian" to underscore what's going on: a child is too young to be "a Christian" voluntarily, so according to Dawkins, when someone calls a child a Christian, what they're really doing is claiming the right to indoctrinate the child in that religion. And when they tell a child he's a Christian, that's part of the indoctrination technique.
Are you saying Dawkins supports this teacher? I'd like to see the reference for that. In fact, this conversation seems to generally assume widespread support for this teacher. Can someone post some links to such support? I have a hard time seeing that side of this issue.
Comment by don provan — May 8, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
In Dawkins world, "describing", and "labelling", are "evil" and "child abuse", respectively. Unfortunately for him [and you, as his defacto apologist], there is not a shred of scientific empirical evidence to support this.
Weren't you the guy who just yesterday said "…science always considers an explanation false until some evidence has been found to support it." ?
Maybe you should think twice then about your adopted role as Dawkins' mouthpiece.
No. Are you saying that Dawkins has denounced the teacher?
Comment by chunkdz — May 8, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
That's because he is an anti-religious bigot.
Comment by MikeGene — May 8, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
It's a moral position. Why would there be empirical evidence to support it?
(Don't get me wrong: Dawkins does present evidence to support parts of his arguments, but his moral thrust is a value judgement. That he justifies by comparing this to other situations where there's a more nearly universal agreement about the values.)
I don't apologize for Dawkins, I just try to describe the nuance of his position that you don't want to look at. In this case, his statement remains consistent with my comment: when he says "calling a child a Christian is child abuse", he's summarizing a much more complete position.
Again, what does science have to do with this?
I'd be glad to, but so many people around here continually attack Dawkins on trivial grounds that his arguments deal with. Or misunderstand him altogether. Like accusing him of wanting to label anyone a child abuser that in any situation uses the word "Christian" in any sense to refer to a child.
As it happens, I think Dawkins is wrong about this whole child abuse position, but I doubt we'll ever see an actual discussion of what he's actually saying around here. Still, I can correct you when you're wrong and hope that you'll actually get over your Dawkins Kneejerks.
That's an interesting opinion. That's not how he explains why he thinks that. But it's OK with me if you want to apply a label suggesting that he's irrational rather than actually interacting with his entirely rational arguments.
Comment by don provan — May 8, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
It’s a rational opinion supported by evidence.
It is irrational to label religious upbringing as child abuse. It’s a broad-brushed, propagandistic claim that is not supported by science.
Comment by MikeGene — May 8, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Apparently nothing.
Anyone who was REALLY interested in studying and understanding child abuse and religion would have hundreds upon hundreds of scientific studies at his disposal. How many studies has Dawkins cited to support his assertion?
Comment by chunkdz — May 8, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Mike Gene:
In your opinion perhaps. It can also be used quite neutrally to say that something doesn't make sense. Maybe the teacher does have contempt for creationism (whatever he means by that), but you can't conclude that from the mere word 'nonsense'. Anyway, rudeness is not illegal.
Would it be OK for a teacher to say that homeopathy is nonsense? Some people believe in it quite religiously.
I didn't say I think that, so I wonder why you ask this question.
I agree that the teacher was probably unnecessarily rude. But if the facts, to the best knowledge of mainstream scientists, contradict certain Christian beliefs, then that's just too bad for those Christian students. I don't see why stating such facts, even in a rude manner, should be illegal. The teacher in question was also commenting on one of his colleagues who said in his/her class that evolution was nonsense and who promoted creationism. At least, that's what I read.
Comment by Raevmo — May 8, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
May 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Ravemo:
That is why context matters. The word ‘nonsense’ was coupled with the pejorative word ‘superstitious.’ Also, there is the larger context of the same teacher repeatedly expressing his contempt for Christianity in his classroom.
No, this particular rudeness just tells us the teacher is a pompous atheist. What’s illegal is for such a representative of the state to either promote or denigrate religion in the classroom. Tom explains it here.
You think the teacher was simply stating “facts.” So it was not clear that you were able to see the distinction.
Here are the two statements:
The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is not supported by science.
The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is superstitious nonsense.
Do you see a difference between the two?
Comment by MikeGene — May 9, 2009 @ 10:17 am
May 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
In his book, How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, skeptic Michael Shermer briefly describes how as a teenager he became an evangelical Christian and then how he lost his faith and became a secular humanist. He writes in the books preface:
“The primary credit…for my turn toward science and secular humanism in graduate school goes to Professors Baynard Brattstrom, Meg White, and Doug Naverick at the California State University– Fullerton, whose passion for science made me realize that no religion could come close to the epic narratives told by cosmologists, evolutionary biologists, and social scientists about the origins and evolution of the cosmos, life behavior, and civilization.” (xv-xvi)
Now let’s think through this from a practical perspective. Do you think that Shermer changed his world view because he was subjected to unending ridicule and contempt? Or, was it because professors were willing to engage him in a respectful, even friendly non-hostile manner?
BTW way I disagree with Shermer’s position, which in my view conflates a philosophical world view naturalism with “science.” My point is that this is how persuasion really works in a free, open and democratic society.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 9, 2009 @ 11:03 am
May 9th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Mike Gene:
Yes, the second statement is more accurate. The claim that there is no life in our galaxy except in our solar system is not supported by science either, but nor is it contradicted by science. In other words, the first statement is too neutral wrt to the YEC claim. A more accurate statement, equivalent to the second statement, would be The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old has been refuted beyond any reasonable doubt by science. Would that be denigrating religion?
From Wikipedia: To medieval scholars the word [superstition] was applied to any beliefs outside of or in opposition to Christianity; today it is applied to conceptions without foundation in, or in contravention of, scientific and logical knowledge.
Comment by Raevmo — May 9, 2009 @ 11:06 am
May 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
No it’s not. Remember, your original position was the teacher was stating facts. The first statement is factual and refers to the world and science. It is objectively accurate. The second statement is a value judgment about beliefs and is used to express contempt. It is a subjective opinion.
Comment by MikeGene — May 9, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
May 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Mike Gene:
You're wrong as I explained in my previous comment. The first statement is indeed factual but falls short because it leaves open the option that science doesn't contradict the YEC claim. The second statement is more accurate because it does include the assessment that the YEC claim is contradicted by science, by means of the words "superstitious" (let me repeat: To medieval scholars the word [superstition] was applied to any beliefs outside of or in opposition to Christianity; today it is applied to conceptions without foundation in, or in contravention of, scientific and logical knowledge.) It is therefore not subjective, unlike your claim that it is a value judgment about beliefs and is used to express contempt, which is subjective. You can use almost any word to express contempt, depending on the context and the way the word is pronounced. Perhaps the teacher did intend contempt, but that doesn't follow from statement 2.
Comment by Raevmo — May 9, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
May 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
[...] in response to the post A California Ruling reminded me that hostile critiques frequently overlook nuances inherent to the object of the [...]
Pingback by Augustine on Creation - Telic Thoughts — May 10, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
May 10th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I looked up "superstition" in the dictionary. There were about three different definitions, all beginning with "an irrational belief." It seems that one could rationally believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, even if science says it is much older. One could believe, for example, that one has good theological evidence that in this case science is mistaken, and that when theology and science conflict, theology is the more authoritative source. To one who doesn't accept theological evidence, this would appear to be irrational. However, as a representative of the government, the teacher shouldn't be making that judgment call.
However, I agree with Raevmo that something stronger should be allowed than "not supported by science." Something like, "not only is it not supported by science, but all the evidence of science supports the view that the earth is billions of years old."
Comment by Bilbo — May 10, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
May 11th, 2009 at 4:29 am
This doesn't sound like someone that's actually read Dawkins's arguments.
Comment by don provan — May 11, 2009 @ 4:29 am
May 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Dawkins uses a wide range of evidence, including scientific and historical input. If we ever get anywhere near them, I might go look them up for you if I really thought you'd listen to them.
So far, the situation is this: I have described Dawkins's position simplistically: We consider indoctrination wrong when it is done to adults, so we should also consider it wrong when done to children. So far, your counter argument, as far as I can tell, is, "Is not." You certainly haven't supplied any scientific evidence to support your claim.
But give yourself a pat on the back for doing better that Mike Gene, who simply takes as fundamental that Dawkins's argument is irrational, so he doesn't have to listen to it. (He said, "It's a rational opinion supported by evidence", but so far he's keeping the evidence and the rational to himself.)
Comment by don provan — May 11, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Yes, that's why I asked you to tell me how many scientific studies Dawkins cited to support his "religious upbringing = child abuse" idea.
Wrong. Blanket generalization. Patently false in numerous instances.
Lol! So I need to supply scientific evidence that Dawkins hasn't any scientific evidence?
In that case, Don, where's your scientific evidence that I haven't provided any scientific evidence that Dawkins hasn't provided any scientific evidence?
Comment by chunkdz — May 12, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Why? Do you think we're anywhere near the questions he supports with scientific evidence?
Wow. We might have a conversation. You're actually trying to make an argument. Please feel free to actually make an argment by being specific.
There are two sides to this argument. I will help you explore Dawkins's argument if you wish, but please don't pretend that you don't also have to support your side of the argument.
I don't understand. Have you? If so, can you refresh my memory?
Comment by don provan — May 12, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I don't have an argument. This is not a debate. Dawkins simply made some statements that have no scientific support. I merely pointed this out.
I am not the one making the controversial claim. If you want to defend Dawkins you'll need more than fingerpointing. A single scientific study supporting the "religious upbringing = child abuse" meme will suffice.
Why do I have the sinking feeling that instead of science, you will simply give us more BS obfuscation? Could it be that your reputation preceeds you?
Comment by chunkdz — May 12, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
MikeGene:
And don't forget "poopy-head." Dawkins is most definitely a poopy-head, too.
Is this the Mike Gene of Ye Olde "Gene's gems" Homage? These no-content arguments are laughable and absurd.
Dude, have a spine. It is superstitious nonsense.
The sooner society gets past it, the better America (and indeed, the world) will be. These are modern times with modern problems requiring urgent modern, scientific solutions.
Comment by terrycvn — May 12, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
From what I can tell, the school system in America from K-12 is loaded with socio/cultural indoctrination for the kiddies straight from the NEA's playbook. Oh wait, then when they get to university they get to here lots of anti-American marxist indoctrination, that their parents often don't realize they're paying for.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 12, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
And I pointed out that the statements you pointed to were moral statements, so one shouldn't expect them to have scientific support. If you ever actually address the statements and explore the moral basis for them, we may someday get to something Dawkins claims that requires scientific support, and at that time we can look into whether Dawkins provides any.
I don't want to defend Dawkins. I already told you I don't even agree with him. I'm just offering to help you understand his arguments. So far, you seem stuck on thinking Dawkins's argument is "there are scientific reasons to say indoctrinating children into Christianity is child abuse." I don't know where you got that, but if you're going to stick with it, you'll never understand his position. Perhaps that's what you want?
"What evidence do you present to prove scientifically that I shouldn't beat my wife?"
Comment by don provan — May 12, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Is that OK with you?
Comment by don provan — May 12, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Well do you see a difference or don't you?
Mike's spine seems plenty strong to me. The question is whether a public school teacher has the right to call the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old "superstitious nonsense" in class. Calling it unsupported by science, and even claiming that it is contradicted by science seem justifiable. Once the teacher includes value judgments such as "superstious" and "nonsense," I think it's clear he's crossed the line and made anti-religious attacks. And here in America, we've decided that is a line we don't want our public school teachers to cross.
Comment by Bilbo — May 12, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
And you are wrong. Dawkins didn't say religious upbringing is "immoral" or "bad". He said it is "child abuse".
Child abuse is rigorously described and studied, and can result in any number of clinically diagnosable psychological disorders depending on the type and severity of abuse. Psychological abuse has been studied for decades, so Dawkins should be able to back up his assertion with the volumes of information compiled by the CDC or the APA or any other organization that has studied psychological abuse.
Why didn't Dawkins cite any of this research?
Comment by chunkdz — May 12, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Provan:
I’ve read his argument in the magazine articles and last summer, I did get a chance to read his chapter on child abuse and religion. It was an argument that lacked nuance, thoughtfulness, and balance. Instead, it read like one of the popular political books as it employed shallow arguments and anecdotes to serve the book’s political agenda and the author’s confirmation bias. In other words, propaganda.
But if you would like to argue about this, let’s first clear up a couple of things.
First, Chunkdz noted, “Dawkins says that calling a child a Christian is child abuse.”
You then replied, “Well, no, Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating a child into a religion, whether Christian or not, should be considered child abuse.”
Well, no, Dawkins says that calling a child a Christian is child abuse:
-Here
According to Dawkins, calling a child a Christian is both evil and child abuse. We can get to the fact that he thinks it is worse to teach a child about hell that to physically abuse children, but let’s first reach agreement on the fact that Chunkdz was right.
Secondly, you seem to be back-pedaling.
Originally, you claimed: “Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating a child into a religion, whether Christian or not, should be considered child abuse.”
But a couple of days later, you recast it as follows: “So far, the situation is this: I have described Dawkins's position simplistically: We consider indoctrination wrong when it is done to adults, so we should also consider it wrong when done to children.”
Why did you drop the word “child abuse” from Dawkins’s position? He put it there and has been making this equation very publicly for years. It’s not a question of “wrong.” If we are to talk about Dawkins' position, It’s a question of whether a religious upbringing is child abuse.
To summarize, 1) Dawkins does think calling a child a Christian is child abuse and 2) The issue is not about what is “wrong,” but whether Dawkins is correct in placing a religious upbringing in the category of “child abuse.” Do you disagree with either point?
Comment by MikeGene — May 12, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
May 12th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
No comment
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 12, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
May 13th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Mike,
As I already explained, when Dawkins is saying this, it is the summary of an extended argument in which he has established "calling a child Christian" as a label for the indoctrinating a child into the Christian faith. You know that from the article you read.
Dawkins thinks indoctrination of children into a specific religion is wrong. That's why he feels it should be considered child abuse. It's an opinion, so the issue would be whether he made a good case, not whether he's correct. (We both agree he isn't correct, so that wouldn't be much of a conversation.)
Comment by don provan — May 13, 2009 @ 4:42 am
May 13th, 2009 at 4:48 am
You're starting to get silly. Do you think Dawkins thinks it's good, yet should be considered child abuse for some technical reason regardless of its moral acceptability?
Dawkins wants reigious indoctrination to be added to the list of things considered child abuse, but that doesn't mean it's already something that's been described or studied as child abuse.
What makes you think he didn't?
Comment by don provan — May 13, 2009 @ 4:48 am
May 13th, 2009 at 10:33 am
It takes zero courage to post anonymously on the internet. It takes even less to hurl insults. The only reason your comment was not holed was because I was away from a computer. Wise up if you intend to continue posting at TT.
Comment by Bradford — May 13, 2009 @ 10:33 am
May 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
If Dawkins thinks it's child abuse he should be able to point to some data that supports this.
LOL! Do you ever listen to yourself?
The health benefits of religion are scientifically studied and documented. For Dawkins to properly label religious upbringing "child abuse" he needs to first show some correlation between religion and mental psychoses that accompany psychological child abuse. He didn't.
Enlighten me, oh mighty obtuse one.
Comment by chunkdz — May 13, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
May 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Is that a dig directed at me, or at "Mike Gene"?
Comment by terrycvn — May 13, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
May 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Of course everyone knows who terrycvn is.
Make your comments relevant to the thread topic or don't bother. Dig?
Comment by Bradford — May 13, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
May 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Irrelevant. For one thing, Dawkins doesn't argue that children should be steered away from religion, only that they shouldn't have a specific religion forced down their throats.
Just go to the source. You don't need me. I've only been suggesting that you should actually try to understand the arguments before you start making faulty pronouncements about them.
Comment by don provan — May 13, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
May 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Relax Bradford. From Terrycvn's failure to respond to my argument I think it's clear that Terry's argument doesn't have any content, either.
Comment by Bilbo — May 13, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
May 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Don,
If Dawkins wanted to communicate that it is wrong for parents to indoctrinate children with religion, he should summarize this “extended argument” by saying, “It is wrong to indoctrinate children with religion.” Instead, he has specifically sought to connect religion with child abuse. Since he introduced the term and the equation into the public debate, you don’t get to sweep it under the carpet without distorting his position.
You seem to be impatient with those who won’t consider the mysterious “extended, rational argument” that is supposedly the ‘real message’ behind the faulty accusation. If that is the case, the blame lies with Dawkins. By over-reaching and introducing an inflammatory, bigoted accusation into the public domain, Dawkins has stepped all over his own “argument.” When Dawkins asserts "Do not ever call a child a Muslim child or a Christian child – that is a form of child abuse,” or “"It's a form of child abuse, even worse than physical child abuse,” I’m not sure why you think people are supposed to skip over the inflammatory accusations (as if they were not asserted) and instead focus on some “extended argument” that supposedly does not entail these accusations.
Look, Dawkins has a reputation for being an excellent communicator. So why does Dawkins equate calling a child a Christian with child abuse? Why does Dawkins equate a religious upbringing with child abuse? In that short excerpt alone (above), he introduced the word “abuse” no less that FOUR times. What is he up to? Dawkins is not some scholar trying to objectively explore some issue in an academic setting. Dawkins is an activist whose socio-political agenda is to help foster a culture that expresses contempt against religion and religious people. We get a snippet of it here:
Dawkins is an activist trying to introduce a new “meme” into the culture. He wants more and more people to simply connect the child abuse accusation with religion. Child abuse. Religion. Child abuse. Religion. Child abusers. Religious parents. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt. He calls it the “'Religion as Child Abuse' indictment.”
It has nothing to do with some ad hoc “extended argument.” This is propaganda born of socio-political activism.
Then he is being irrational, as not everything that is personally deemed wrong is child abuse. For example, lot’s of people think the whole Santa Claus routine is wrong. But even if they are correct, it is not child abuse.
Yes, it is indeed Dawkins’s personal opinion that it is better to knock a child's teeth out than to give that child a religious upbringing. However, science has studied the effects of such child abuse and it translates into a significantly higher risk of the survivor developing various mental and physical health issues as an adult. Since science has found no such connection with a religious upbringing, and instead has found many positive mental and physical benefits that come from a religious upbringing, his case is incorrect and thus not a good case (if we mean by “good case” something that connects with reality). His position is superstitious nonsense.
You think we can only have conversation with disagreement? I think not. For example, why not explain why you think he is incorrect? Where and why do you think he is incorrect?
Comment by MikeGene — May 13, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
May 13th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I'm not really interested in literary criticisms.
No, I'm only impatient with silly caricatures of his position.
Because he feels that's the best way to convey his point to someone that's fairly evaluating his position.
That's true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the arguments he presents to justify the relation. Yes, Dawkins isn't above using rhetoric. Why do you mention it?
No, it's propaganda based on a sound argument that you and I may or may not agree with.
Which is why I keep stressing that this label reflects a larger indoctrination than simply convincing the child that he's a Christian.
On the contrary, there's is an extremely high chance that a child indoctrinated in the Christianity will grow up to indoctrinate his own children into Christianity. At this point, we get into the issue of whether Christianity is good or bad, which is a separate case which, indeed, Dawkins depends on when making his child abuse accusation.
I thought you said you read the article. What specific point are you saying is unsupported? You act as if the conclusion itself is unsupported, but you can't possibly think that if you really read the article. The article doesn't just say "child abuse" over and over: it builds up a specific case.
No, I think we can only have a conversation if we discuss the position itself instead of just whether we disagree with it.
I wasn't the one that started this conversation by stating an opinion, so I'm not sure why I should be the one to support my opinion now, but if you like: I think Dawkins raised many important points that Christians fear to deal with — hence the universal response of "he's just a bigot" to this whole thing — but in the end, he doesn't present the extraordinary proof required to overturn such a fundamental part of our society. Even if we were to buy off on his assessment of the problem, there are practical problems with any solution we might try to implement to fix it. I don't recall what he put into the article, but in The God Delusion he brings up some of these problems himself, and, in my opinion (and, I think, in his opinion, as well), doesn't come up with satisfactory solutions that would allow an actual implementation.
Comment by don provan — May 13, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Mike's point is focused on evidence of a link between a religious upbringing and child abuse. Science has found positive benefits from a religious upbringing which militate against the child abuse argument. Indoctrinated is a loaded word. Is atheism indoctrinated too? My father was an aggressive proponent of it long before it became NA fashionable. Children do not necessarily adopt the beliefs of their parents. The child abuse tag is unsupported on a number of levels.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2009 @ 10:43 am
May 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Well, hopefully Mike has better points than "It's good for them, so who cares if it's immoral?"
Well, yes, "indoctrinate" sounds bad, but it's also a word with a fairly concrete meaning, and it's hard to see why it shouldn't be applied to religious training of children. Perhaps we should first start with a less controversial example: if an adult decides to join a particular church, and asks to be emmersed in that church's teachings, would we call that indoctrination? I think the term applies, and, furthermore, I don't think anyone can complain since it's involuntary. If you agree to that, we can agree that a child's religious training is also indoctrination — it is, after all, simply an age appropriate version of what the adult receives — and move on to whether the involuntary nature of the indoctrination might be the important factor.
(By the way, thank-you: in this entire thread, I think this is the first time anyone's actually engaged in a discussion of the issues, and hopefully it's helped you see that the key aspect of the complaint is the use of force against the child. Perhaps we can move on to whether or not that use of force is justified?)
Certainly. It's somewhat rarer though, and certainly less formal. There are no Sunday schools for atheists, for example (unless you consider Unitarian-Universalists such
). And Christians very often oppose it. Perhaps your mother did?
If you think Dawkins would say atheist indoctrination is OK while Christian indoctrination is not, you'd be disappointed. His arguments apply just as well to calling a child an atheist.
Unfortunately, you haven't actually come up with a single one. I'm sorry if your father was as bad as a typical Catholic about indoctrinating you. It's true that not all indoctrination sticks, but that doesn't make it OK for them to try. And the health benifits to the indoctrinated individual are no justification.
The fact remains that, in many cases, religious upbringing involves forcing a defenseless child to adopt the parents' opinions by using the force of authority. One of the first steps in understanding Dawkins's position is recognizing that, at the very least, that requires some justification even though our society currently considers it "standard practice" and "obviously" acceptable.
Here's a fine line for you: suppose instead of "force of authority", the case involved physical force including physical punishment for refusing to accept the appropriate teachings. Does that cross a line or not? If so, what, exactly, is the line? (As I'm sure you're aware, some children are treated this way in their religious upbringing, although hopefully much less today that a century ago. Could we agree that those cases, at least, are child abuse?)
Comment by don provan — May 14, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
dp:
That's a strange juxtaposition of concepts. Something that is good for you can be immoral.
Indoctrinated is a loaded word.
From the dictionary:
The first definition is value neutral. The second carries a negative connotation.
Are we using force against children when we send them to public schools and expose them to teachings that reflect particular cultural norms? Is a teacher who links tolerance to acceptance of gay marriage teaching or indoctrinating?
The child abuse tag is unsupported on a number of levels.
You have misplaced the burden of proof. I do not have to prove that teaching children religious doctrines is not child abuse (an attempt to prove a negative). I have yet to see hard evidence that it is.
Authority is used all the time in attempts to gain credibility for a point of view. Most of the time this occurs in the secular world. I'm always opposed to attempts to force people to believe. That's one of the reasons I strongly oppose efforts to curtail freedom of expression through subterfuges like "fairness doctrines."
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
That's the point, Provan. Not only does Dawkins not provide proof, he does not provide ANY evidence that is not anecdotal.
So in fact he's calling millions of parents all over the world "child abusers" for indoctrinating their children into their family's religion. Yet he does this without a shred of solid evidence to support his assertion. Furthermore, his assertion flies contrary to established scientific results. This has every indication of the onset of crankdom for The Dawk. He's just completely turned his back on science to pursue his little quixotic quest.
Comment by chunkdz — May 14, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Yes, it is. The problem, of course, is in evaluating "good". chunkdz was implicitly suggesting that if it was healthy, then automatically it would be good no matter how well Dawkins establishes other ways in which is it bad.
Correct. Indoctrination is bad if you are against the "partisan or ideological point of view", but it's good if you are in favor of the "body of doctrine or principles".
Yes, of course we are. As I said, the question isn't whether force is used, but whether it's justified. In the case of religious training, that results in a complex weighing of values, and to say we understand Dawkins's argument, we need to be able to relate how he assigns the value. Then we can see where we really disagree with him rather than being stuck in the "because he is an anti-religious bigot" class of "arguments".
How did you determine the burden of proof? One of the things Dawkins wants us to consider is how much of our approval is based on nothing but "well, it's always been done that way."
(Dawkins does make a case that we've only scratched the surface of. I'm not really that interested in presenting the case to you, so I suggest you go read the book if you really want to see it.)
So you agree with Dawkins, then? You just don't want to call it "child abuse"?
Comment by don provan — May 14, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Look, Provan, if you have to twist my words to support your argument, then your argument most likely sucks.
It was you, Don, who brought up the idea of whether religious upbringing was "good" or "bad". Not me. Not Mike. Not Bradford. And not Dawkins.
Dawkins said religious upbringing is "child abuse". Your attempts to replace the "child abuse" concept with notions of "good" and "bad" or "healthy" or "unhealthy" are too transparent for us not to notice.
Why don't you show some intellectual honesty and directly address the issue? Nobody cares about your opinions.
Is religious indoctrination of children child abuse, or isn't it?
Comment by chunkdz — May 14, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Where has he done that with scientific, non-anecdotal evidence?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 14, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Maybe Dawkins should consider how much pleasure it would give me to jam my foot up his pompous arse. What the hell does it matter what he wants? He's merely atoms in a certain configuration. Pardon me if my atoms
disagree with his atomsdon't give a shit what his atoms think or want.Comment by kornbelt888 — May 14, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Ahem
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 14, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
It's fine if you don't want to consider Dawkins's points, but just please stop pretending that you know what he's saying.
Comment by don provan — May 15, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Are we using force against children when we send them to public schools and expose them to teachings that reflect particular cultural norms? (You left out this next sentence in your response): Is a teacher who links tolerance to acceptance of gay marriage teaching or indoctrinating?
You're abusing the English language when you fail to distinguish between teaching and indoctrination. They are defined differently. Teachers are not necessarily indoctrinators.
If Dawkins wants to make a child abuse charge stick he needs to back it up with evidence, not sleight of hand with English language definitions.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I fail to see where I failed to distinguish the two.
It's not the teachers that use force, but the people that make the children go to them.
Teaching isn't inherently indoctrination, but I interpreted the question as being focused on the aspects of teaching that are indoctrination, such as the lessons that teach the golden rule and other norms of our society.
As I've said before, he does back it up.
My conversation here and whatever you correctly or incorrectly read into has nothing to do with Dawkins's argument, of course. And the very fact that you'd try to smear Dawkins with my words just goes to show how far you'll go to avoid actually engaging his ideas.
Comment by don provan — May 15, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I already answered this and told you that I do not agree with Dawkins that religious indoctrination should be considered child abuse. But I notice a difference between your question and my answer: you asked if it is, I answered whether it should be considered. And perhaps this is part of our problem. Do you see "child abuse" as a clearly defined, unalterable class that one must prove inclusion in? I see "child abuse" as a label we define to mean those things we shouldn't allow people to do to children. As such, one would show that some behavior was "bad", meaning we didn't want to allow it because of how it infringed on the child's rights. Having done so, that would add it to list of things we consider child abuse. You seem to expect Dawkins to show that it is something we already consider child abuse. Does that help us any?
Comment by don provan — May 15, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Your support of Dawkins is not doing him any favors. Have mercy on the man and simply link to his articles without comment.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
It should be considered if there is evidence. Since there is no evidence, there is nothing to consider.
Call us when you actually have some.
Comment by chunkdz — May 15, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Chunkdz, I think Don is a double agent. He is actually part of the ID movement and his posts are intended to embarass Dawkins.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Here's how Don is able to rationalize his perspective.
First, let's take a look at the minimal definition of child abuse as determined by Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).
Pretty straightforward and comprehensive. Now how could a person possibly include Sunday School attendance in this definition? Especially without a single shred of evidence?
Simple. Ignore it, and come up with an arbitrary, vague, watered down definition of your own. Voila!
Now PETA can accuse McDonald's of "child abuse"!
Now Congress can declare Hershey Bars as "child abuse"!
And of course, Richard Dawkins can accuse millions of parents of committing…you guessed it – "child abuse"!
It's so logical. Thanks Don for clearing up the confusion.
Comment by chunkdz — May 15, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I think I know what he's saying. I read the book. And he can shove a copy up his arse. That's what the atoms in my brain thinks about his atoms.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 15, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Lol! If I were Dawkins I'd issue Don a "cease and desist" letter pronto!
Comment by chunkdz — May 15, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
May 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you I'm not supporting Dawkins.
I don't care whether you look at his articles and books. I'm just complaining because you act like you can dismiss his case without actually looking at it.
Comment by don provan — May 16, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
May 16th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
How do you know there's no evidence?
Dawkins wrote an entire book "calling you". The name is The God Delusion. Call us when you've read it. If you don't want to read it, that's fine, but don't pretend you have reasons to reject his argument.
It's funny how you pretend that if I regurgitated Dawkins's arguments, that would somehow improve the situation. I wasn't even repeating Dawkins's arguments when Bradford slammed Dawkins for something I said.
Comment by don provan — May 16, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
May 16th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
"Sunday school attendance" would not necessarily fit. Unitarian-Universalists, for example, have have a Sunday school program which teaches about all religions, which in itself would be acceptable to Dawkins. (I'm not a real expert on religious education, so I can't say for sure whether other aspects of the Unitarian Sunday school program might lead Dawkins to consider it, as a whole, just another example of religious indoctrination.)
As to your definition, I would say that Dawkins considers religious indoctrination of children as causing emotional harm and as being exploitation.
Here's another fine line for y'all to ignore: Is it always OK for cults to indoctrination the member's children in the cult's beliefs?
Yes! And excellent point. We would have to actually look at Dawkins's arguments to see if he has a valid reason to make his claims that should convince us in general. (As it turns out, that's exactly what he fails to do, but, as I've said several times now, my point is that you can't really say that, or say whether he convinces you, unless you consider his actual arguments instead of brushing him off based on his reputationation in your circles.)
Comment by don provan — May 16, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
May 16th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Really? Wow, nothing you've said shows any evidence of that. You treat his position as being one trivial statement. You should rip his arguments apart piece by piece, if that's how you decided his conclusion was invalid.
Comment by don provan — May 16, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
May 16th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Don Provan:
Of course not. Once we begin to ponder why Dawkins chooses to repeatedly state that religion is a form of child abuse instead of saying it is wrong to indoctrinate children in religion, your spin begins to unravel.
There has been no silly caricature of his position.
I asked, “So why does Dawkins equate calling a child a Christian with child abuse?”
Insisting that calling a child a Christian is child abuse is not the best way to convey the belief that it is wrong to indoctrinate a child with religion. The better way to convey that belief is to claim it is wrong to indoctrinate a child with religion.
But you got one thing right – “Because he feels.” Clearly his position is not rooted in critical thinking and science; it stems from emotion. It’s obvious he hates religion and religious people (for example, he calls them “faith-heads” regularly). Such hate explains why he approaches this topic as a biased activist using propaganda rather than an objective scientist using data.
I’m glad you admit that Dawkins is an activist trying to introduce a new meme into the culture to achieve a socio-political end. This context helps us understand why his rhetoric gets so far ahead of any “arguments” he presents that is becomes propaganda.
Not bad so far. You have admitted important points: Dawkins’s position is rooted in emotion; Dawkins is an activist; and Dawkins is using propaganda. Somehow, amid this context, you believe the propagandistic claim that “religion is child abuse” is based on sound argument. That’s not a reality based approach.
You stress an irrelevant point. Unless you can make the case that this “larger indoctrination” is child abuse, you are only stressing a Red Herring.
It doesn’t matter whether you can make some subjective case whether Christianity is good or bad. Everyone has their opinions on this, we’ve heard all the arguments, and we already know that you and Dawkins believe Christianity is bad. But as I noted, not everything that is personally deemed wrong or bad is child abuse. Thus, any argument that attempts to label a Christian upbringing as child abuse because some Dawkins or Provan believes it is bad fails. You need much more that your personal value judgments or morality arguments.
Which specific article did you have in mind?
His “'Religion as Child Abuse' indictment” is not supported by science or logical thinking. According to Raevmo’s Wiki definition of superstition, it “is applied to conceptions without foundation in, or in contravention of, scientific and logical knowledge.” The “'Religion as Child Abuse' indictment” clearly qualifies as superstitious nonsense.
Dawkins’s case is much like that of an Ann Coulter. He clearly is trying to advance an agenda. Thus, rather than a nuanced and even-handed analysis, we get a clever apologetic supported with black-and-white thinking and cherry-picked anecdotes. The rhetoric is designed to appeal to like-minded people such as yourself. You are then supposed to go out into the world and make the “religion is child abuse” claims/arguments. If enough of his fans do this, he thinks the emergence of this new meme will sway “the fence-sitters.”
You are being played. Either that, or you are a player in the NA movement.
I have been discussing it. Dawkins believes a religious upbringing is child abuse, equivalent or worse to physically abusing a child by knocking the child's teeth out. However, science has studied the effects of physical child abuse and it translates into a significantly higher risk of the survivor developing various mental and physical health issues as an adult. Do you know this? Since science has found no such connection with a religious upbringing, and instead has found many positive mental and physical benefits that come from a religious upbringing, his case is incorrect and thus not a good case (if we mean by “good case” something that connects with reality).
Finally, I asked: “For example, why not explain why you think he is incorrect? Where and why do you think he is incorrect?”
Just as I expected – you had trouble answering the question. You originally claimed “I think Dawkins is wrong about this whole child abuse position,” yet the above awkward answer seems to be saying that you don’t think Dawkins has gone far enough. He’s incorrect because he has no “extraordinary proof required to overturn such a fundamental part of our society?” So you think that views that are not powerful enough to accomplish social agendas are “incorrect” or “wrong?” That’s not how most people interpret “wrong” or “incorrect.” Or it is because he “doesn't come up with satisfactory solutions that would allow an actual implementation?” So his views are wrong because he hasn’t come up with a strategy for to implement his social agenda? Huh?
So this all leaves me with the important question:
Do you believe that a religious upbringing is child abuse?
Comment by MikeGene — May 16, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
May 17th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Mike Gene:
Like what?
What could be the mental and physical benefits of forcing children to learn the Koran by heart for many years, denying them learning of useful skills?
Or are you specifically talking about Christian upbringing in the US?
Comment by Raevmo — May 17, 2009 @ 6:26 am
May 17th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I've read the relevant chapter on children and abuse. His argument is based on anecdotes and his personal opinions. There is not a shred of science to be found that says that raising my kids to be Christians is child abuse.
Are you suggesting that there is more information elsewhere in the book that makes the argument that religious upbringing is child abuse?
Comment by chunkdz — May 17, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
May 18th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
He does give several examples. Do you agree that those examples are child abuse? Is your point that he hasn't provided enough examples to justify the more general claim?
Comment by don provan — May 18, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Perhaps I need to refresh you memory. The three examples that come to mind are the child sacrificed by Incas, children psychologically scared in various ways by Hell, and children being prevented from from getting an education by their Amish parents. Do you deny any of those are child abuse?
Comment by don provan — May 19, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Apparently Dawkins disagrees with you. He has a different measure of "best", I guess.
How he feels about his presentation does not indicate an emotional source to the argument.
As are you.
It would if we had demonstrated problems with his arguments. But you haven't even addressed his arguments.
No, but it would matter if he made an objective case, and he has. Then you actually have to address the case rather than simply brushing it off as subjective without even looking at it.
The article you said you read.
I think I already made it clear that I do not. Why do you consider this important? What's important are the arguments that led Dawkins to this conclusion and what they say about the inconsistent way our society deals with religion.
Comment by don provan — May 19, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Dawkins is a narcistic personality who enjoys the attention he gets by flinging insults. Calling someone a child abuser is a very serious thing. It's a criminal act. It's not done for sophomoric reasons like I hate religion and will link it to child abuse to vent my hatred.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
And there's no evidnece, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that Dawkins said that to vent hatred. Indeed, he makes a coherent argument, so he's motives are not important even if you could prove them nefarious. Unlike your argument here, which is nothing but unsubstantiated name calling.
Comment by don provan — May 19, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
-One example from a defunct ancient culture.
-And two contemporary examples with no scientific correlation to child abuse.
Where's the science, Don? Where's the logic, Don? Where's the reason, Don? Poor Dawkins is trying to say I shouldn't put my kids in Sunday School because of what the Inca's did? Hello? 1-800-IMACRANK?
Comment by chunkdz — May 19, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Dawkins makes a childish argument that would not impress any legislature in the country considering laws against child abuse.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Bradford:
You call his arguments childish without actually addressing his arguments. That is a bit childish. I think most of us agree that religious upbringing is not automatically tantamount to child abuse. However, it's also clear that some forms of religious upbringing do harm children. Does anyone wish to deny this?
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
So we're all in agreement. Dawkins is dead wrong.
Comment by chunkdz — May 19, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
chunk:
If he claimed that religious upbringing is automatically tantamount to child abuse, then I think he is wrong, yes. But, (1) is that what he claimed? (no quote-mining please) (2) Do you agree that some forms of religious upbringing are tantamount to child abuse? To make it easier for you, is it for example child abuse to deny one's sick child life-saving medical intervention but instead rely on prayer-healing?
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Raevmo:
The problem with this is its triviality. One would be hard pressed to cite any large scale movement (in this case one that includes billions of people) where some groups advocating perverse practices could not be found.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Bradford:
That is indeed a trivial observation. It's less trivial that hundreds of millions of women are denied an education because of their religious upbringing.
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Raevmo:
When you come upon an abuse cite it but to lump those responsible for abusing women with those not responsible is the type of bigotry Hitler feasted on.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Are they child abuse or not? Why don't you answer that simple question?
Science starts with examples. If he hadn't provided examples, you would try to brush his argument off as "vague".
The logic and reason are in the extended argument. He starts with one case that is obviously child abuse: the child was murdered.
He goes on to examples which seem clearly to be psychological abuse. You should be asking yourself the line between these examples of teaching children about Hell and any other approach to Hell.
And he provides a third example of not allowing children to have an education since the only reason we excuse it is because the parents' motivation is religious. Why is it OK for Amish parents to keep their kids out of school, but not for the guy that thinks learning is a waste of time?
These are not isolated anecdotes. They are specific cases where any reasonable person would say the children are being abused for religious reasons. Are you a reasonable person or not?
Can you follow that so far? Showing that religions can produce child abuse is not the entire argument, but we're going over it one step at a time.
Comment by don provan — May 19, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Bradford:
Argument by Hitler. Do you deny that hundreds of millions of women are denied an eduction because of their religious upbringing? If not, then you agree that religious upbringing is often tantamount to child abuse.
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I've explain already that Dawkins in not against religious upbringings, only against forcing the child into a specific religion. For example, one of the ideas he floats is an upbringing that presents all religious views equally, including atheism, of course. I think he actually goes over that idea in that chapter on child abuse you read.
Comment by don provan — May 19, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Let me know when you actually want to deal with Dawkins's argument. In the meantime, stop wasting our time with you continuous name calling.
Of course no legislature in the country would consider such laws. There are many reasons for that, and it would be interesting to discuss those reasons, but the one you really can't support is that the arguments are childish. But I'd love to see you try just because it would lift you up into the realm of reasoned discussion.
Comment by don provan — May 19, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I have no idea what the Incas thought about human sacrifice. Seems to me they all dug it.
Learning about hell, and going to an Amish school are not child abuse by any modern definition.
And I'm still waiting for even a single shred of hard evidence that does not rely on his opinion, or an anecdote, or some fallacious appeal to an ancient ritual.
Comment by chunkdz — May 19, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Interestingly, in the Gospels, Jesus talks more about Hell than Heaven. Apparently, he wanted everyone to avoid it.
At any rate, if Hell is real, wouldn't you want your parents teaching you about it? The parents teaching it to their kids apparently believe it is, and they want to steer their kids away from it. I was taught it as a kid, and I'm not scarred at all by the idea. And I've never met anyone who is. But I freely confess that there's probably some abuse that goes on in the name of religion. But there's also abuse that goes on in the "name" of materialism and other philosophies. Abuse is a human problem, not necessarily a religious one.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 19, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
What do you care? They're only atoms in a certain configuration bound to eventual disintegration anyway, just like a star or a galaxy. It sounds to me as if you actually think they have some kind of absolute value, worth caring about.
Well, I know you don't believe in absolute value of souls, or anything, Raevmo, but it's nice to see atheists behave as if you do. To his credit, Dawkins often expresses the same sorts of sentiments. (What else would you call them?) And it's despite his grounding philosophy. You're more divine then you let on.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 19, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Don Provan:
I have little patience with those using sophistry to cover bigotry. Here are Dawkins’s “arguments:
While we all understand the activist’s propagandistic reasons for using these inflammatory accusations, Dawkins is cheapening the reality of a child abuse. Child abuse is a horrible thing that horribly scars a person for life. Let’s consider what the research shows:
In fact, the development of the human brain is so sensitive during childhood that even emotional abuse and simple neglect have a similar effect:
Another study that shows neglect to be harmful:
And another:
BTW, to help appreciate how child abuse results in physical changes to the brain, consider this recent study:
I could go on and on.
Don, since you and Dawkins like to talk about science so much, why don’t you use the findings of this research and begin thinking like a scientist. Take your anti-religious assertions and formulate a testable hypothesis.
If labelling children is child abuse, then we should see…
Or
If teaching a child about hell is worse than physical child abuse, then we should see…
It’s the least you can do if you are going to cheapen the seriousness of child abuse to score propagandistic points in your culture war.
Oh, and a couple of questions.
1. Does Dawkins ever cite any of those studies in his chapter on child abuse?
2. Has Dawkins ever expressed concern about child abuse apart from the religious angle?
(BTW, If you need help filling out the sentences, let me know.)
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Hey dp,
Is child abuse defined as morally relative to the majority of a culture's beliefs?
Comment by CJYman — May 19, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
dp:
Why would he separate "religion" from any other system of thought or worldview? Everyone is "forced" into some mode of thought when they are a child.
Comment by CJYman — May 19, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 12:40 am
No kidding. Think of the kids who are forced to become Detroit Lions fans.
Comment by MikeGene — May 20, 2009 @ 12:40 am
May 20th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Child abuse?
Comment by MikeGene — May 20, 2009 @ 12:42 am
May 20th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Kornbelt:
I prefer to think that the divine was invented by humans, which explains why "divine properties" are shared by many people – religious or not.
Mike Gene:
[MG's emphasis]
Not necessarily of course, but it can have that effect. Most of your examples show that given mental health problems later in life, abuse as a child is a significant predictor. That doesn't imply the converse of course.
Wouldn't you agree that religion and religious upbringing has ruined and still does ruin the lives of billions of women all over the planet, and therefore qualifies as child abuse? That is, according to our (highly evolved) modern western standards of what constitutes such abuse. Obviously, most perpetrators of such abuse would deny that they engaged in abuse.
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2009 @ 2:54 am
May 20th, 2009 at 7:55 am
No problem. Nevertheless, it's nice to see atheists behave as if they think souls have real divine value (even though you think it's merely human invention.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 20, 2009 @ 7:55 am
May 20th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Raising a child without instilling a strong moral background rooted in a coherent religion is child abuse. P.Z. Myers' daughter is a perfect example of the result of such child abuse.
I'd wager Don Provan's children and Dawkins' children have suffered such negligence. Unless they don't have children, in which case they're doing what they do best – talking out of their posteriors.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 20, 2009 @ 9:32 am
May 20th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Oh, and to anticipate any rebuttal along the lines of "I know about children even though I don't have any because I've read studies, blah blah blah", no, you don't.
There are two extremely simple questions that every child knows and asks repeatedly that can stump the greatest of materialist philosophers. If you don't know what those two questions are and how to satisfactorily answer them, you don't know anything about children or life in general.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 20, 2009 @ 9:41 am
May 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Raevmo:
Their religious upbringing along with some cultural influences. That needs to be added because one can find the same religion in two places and abuse in only one of them.
No. Not often. That's precisely the kind of bigotry that made the holocaust possible.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Indeed.
Comment by chunkdz — May 20, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
So it's not child abuse as long as most people dig it?
The examples were of psychological scaring caused by learning about hell, and not going to school at all, not going to an alternative school. Please, I thought you said you read this chapter, but now you're acting like someone that has no idea what I'm talking about.
Yes. Thank you for your time. I have to concede that you can reject any argument involving Christianity and child abuse if you think that absolutely anything including murder is not child abuse so long as the population digs it. Dawkins is aiming at an audience that is willing to question the status quo, not one that accepts the status quo in and of itself as the measure of morality.
Comment by don provan — May 20, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
So there are two things we need to consider. First, the examples are not simply teaching about hell, but scaring children in an extreme way that causes psychological trauma. Child abuse or not? Whether there are other ways to teach about Hell that don't cause trauma is irrelevant for evaluating the specific case.
The other thing for us to consider is about whether Hell is real. If Hell isn't real, are parents still justified in teaching that it is real? What if we don't know whether it's real or not? Are parents justified in teaching that it's definitely real in that case?
Consider this: cults teach that things are real, too, even things that you and I agree are almost certainly not real. Like spaceships coming to pick up people that kill themselves at the right time. Would teaching that be child abuse?
Comment by don provan — May 20, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
The question Dawkins is asking is why we exempt religion. Yes, parents make decisions for children all the time. And we judge those decisions all the time. So why is chunkdz prepared to excuse the murder of an Incan child simply because it was accepted religious practice at the time? Why are people prepared to excuse permanent psychological scarring because the parents are inflicting it based on a religious belief in Hell? Why do we excuse unacceptable damage on the child because of religious motivation by the parents?
Comment by don provan — May 20, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
No it's just irrelevant to Dawkins claim that calling a child a Christian is child abuse that is worse than physical abuse. It's like saying basketball is a racist sport because in the early 20th century they didn't allow African Americans in the NBA.
What percentage of kids who learn about hell become "emotionally scarred"? What are the associated psychoses and their rate of diagnoses? Were there other extenuating circumstances? (Were Mom and Dad emotionally unstable?) Was the child suffering from other forms of mental stress? Was there a clinical dignosis performed?
We'll never know because it's just an anecdote, and Dawkins didn't bother to find any scientific coroberation. He just found someone willing to say "I was scarred by religion" and that apparently was enough for him to conclude that teaching about hell is child abuse.
The Amish send their kids to school through eighth grade, sufficient for an agrarian lifestyle and considerably more than most agrarian societies have done over the last 12,000 years or so. When did you decide that this is child abuse?
If you think that calling a child a Christian child is "child abuse" because of what the Incas did 500 years ago and because the Amish don't know calculus and because some woman wrote Richard Dawkins a letter saying that hell scares her,… then you are probably capable rationalizing anything you like about Christianity.
But it won't change the fact that neither you nor Dawkins have a single item of hard evidence to support your bigotted claims.
Not one.
Not a single one.
Comment by chunkdz — May 20, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I didn't excuse it. I just think it's silly and childish to indict a Christian parent who sends his kid to sunday school as a "child abuser" because of what the Incas did 500 years ago. Irrelevant. It's like saying that science is racist because of Linnaeus.
Childish, unscientific, and illogical. Like Dawkins.
Ummm, because the only evidence presented is a few anecdotes?
Just waiting for even a single shred of unbiased, scientifically supported, non-anecdotal evidence. Just one. Just one wafer thin piece.
Here's an idea, Donnie. The Amish have been included in health studies for years because of their genetic homogeneity and because their sampling is not usually corrupted by alcohol and tobacco use, sociopathy, or obesity. Why don't you go to the stacks and see if you can come up with some kind of study that supports your claim that Amish children are being ritually abused?
Just one piece of actual evidence is all I'm asking for.
Comment by chunkdz — May 20, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Is.
I agree, if "trauma" is all you (and Dawkins) are worried about.
That's a more complication subject. Some people believe they have spiritual experiences that confirm the idea. Or maybe its just that they are convinced because of historical and apologetic reasons, etc. Why would you have the right to interfere with their teaching their children about it, unless it leads to trauma/abuse? Is merely holding a false idea trauma or abuse? I don't think so. But the bottom line here, who gets to be the final arbiter with regards to that? I guess all you can do is try to build a state-sponsored consensus, which I gather is what Dawkins is trying to do. But don't be surprised if you get stiff opposition.
I think that would be abuse. I draw the line at trauma/abuse.
So then, all Dawkins is really saying is that only religious teaching that leads to trauma or worse is the kind that is "child abuse"? If this is so, then I have no quarrel. But merely teaching religious ideas to a child is neither trauma nor abuse in any sense that the state should interfere.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 20, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Don Provan,
By the way, didn't Dawkins say that merely calling your child a Christian was child abuse? Do you agree with him?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 20, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
No, it's nothing like that. It's an example. If this happened today, would we agree that it was child abuse or not? If you aren't even willing to consider that question, then you have no chance of understanding what Dawkins is saying.
Now you're claiming it's OK if it's not too many?
On the contrary, he's very specific about the example, and it is a book, not a scientific treatise. The interesting part of one example is that the instructor makes no bones about the fact that he's inflicting what is obviously psychological trauma because "I would rather for them to understand that Hell is a place that they absolutely do not want to go."
He also references a psychologist that runs a support group for people scared by such upbringings. So you simply can't say it doesn't happen, or that there are always extenuating circumstances. Besides, that's not the point: the point is that many people wouldn't consider such things problems as long as they were justified because the child was "a Christian child".
No, we have decided that it's child abuse, and we wouldn't allow anyone else to get away with it except when they use religion as an excuse.
I told you that I don't. Now stick to what Dawkins is saying instead of pretending you can ignore it just because you have a preconception about the conclusion.
And no one's asking you to. We're asking you to think about the example, and place it in the context of an entire argument.
Could you cut down on the irrelevant name calling, please?
Comment by don provan — May 21, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Not in this conversation. In our context, we are defining child abuse according to our culture's beliefs. That is, after all, what we're trying to decide: what cases we can agree are child abuse.
It's not as if we're talking about sending time cops back to put the Inca priests into jail. After all, it was the priest wielding the knife that declared the moral standards for Incan culture, so obviously he going to make sure he's innocent in the eyes of Incan society.
And that's part of the point. Aren't we measuring child abuse based on the morality dictated by the religion causing the child abuse? Isn't there something wrong with letting the suspect define the crime?
Comment by don provan — May 21, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Thank-you. Of course it is. Do you have any idea why chunkdz is working so hard not to say so?
Isn't everyone worried about trauma to innocent children? But, no, it's not only trauma. A child that's given only religious training and work duties is being denied the opportunity for what our culture considers a full life. Are we concerned about that? Does it matter whether the parents do it just because they want a slave girl or because their religion teaches them that their daughters should be made slave girls?
You're making a reasonable point, but please consider this: crackpots and cult members say the same thing. Do they get a pass, too? Dawkins's first point is that we should hold all people to the same standards rather then make exceptions for people that claim to have "spiritual experiences". Christianity seems to force us to take the first step on a slippery slope that slides us all the way to "parents can do whatever they want to their children because who are we to say what they're doing is bad?" Does "spiritual experience" really give us a good place to stop sliding?
Dawkins raises that question. His answer is that it is abuse. I disagree, but I think it's a good question that deserves more consideration than, "I don't think so." For example, if the idea really is demonstrably wrong, and the idea has a net negative impact on the child's life, then how do we feel about it? Dawkins, of course, feels he's made that case for Christianity, but we don't have to accept that. But, in general, is there a problem with teaching falsehoods?
Yes, this is a good point. This is one aspect of what I mean when I say that there are very practical problems in the way of accepting Dawkins's point, not only in that it would not be accepted, but also in that there's really no possibility of any accepted neutrality.
Dawkins does suggest some ideas, such as school programs approved by all interested parties to teach all religious views so the child could choose for himself at an appropriate age. That still has problems — "all" views? — but it gives us something to think about. For example, such a program could be set up as entirely voluntary, outside any government control: you send your kids if you want to. Now ask yourself who would voluntarily send their kids to such a program. Almost no one, of course. And why? Because most people want their kids to follow in their religion, and they don't believe that their religion is fundamentally better in a way that would attract their children if they were given a free choice. This is what forces us to recognize that religious training — starting with calling a child a Christian — really is indoctrination in the purest sense of the word, even our personal opinion is that that indoctrination is benign.
What Dawkins is saying with these examples is that we excuse what we'd otherwise consider child abuse when it is done in the name of religious training, and we shouldn't.
This is chapter 9 in a 10 chapter book, so he is also making a stronger point based on those first 8 chapters of groundwork, but that's another conversation.
Comment by don provan — May 21, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Umm, my example was an example too.
Yup. If Christians (or Incas) killed kids it would be called child abuse. And if the NBA started excluding blacks from playing it would be called racism.
And of course, neither your example or mine has any relevance to Dawkins claim that calling a child a Christian is child abuse.
If you have to twist my words, then your argument probably sucks. I was merely pointing out your staggering ignorance about your supposed examples.
A series of examples does not mean the arguments are logical. Putting some science behind it would help this, but for some reason Dawkins ignores the relevant science. Why do you think he did this?
I teach my kids not to run out in the street. They do not lie awake at night worrying about getting hit by a truck, and they do not need a support group to help them get over their fear of trucks. There are manifold reasons why a subject might want to blame their parents for their problems. Why do you suppose Dawkins didn't investigate them?
There are quack psychologists in every yellow pages in the country. Why do you suppose Dawkins references a psychologist's anecdote instead of referencing a peer reviewed psychological journal?
Actually the Supreme Court decided that it's not child abuse. 7-0.
Since the only way that you have been able to argue your point is by changing the definition of child abuse, I find it difficult to take you seriously. As for Dawkins, his examples either are not abuse or are out of cultural context.
We've done that and Dawkins argument is still childishly illogical. I've got a better idea.
Let's play a game, Don. For every example you present of abuse in the name of religion to support your "teaching a specific religion is child abuse" meme, I'll provide an example of abuse in the name of science to support my "teaching science is child abuse" meme.
I'll use your Inca example to get the ball rolling.
Don – *Incas sacrificed kids in the name of religion.
Chunk – *Scientists at Cold Spring Harbor performed 60,000 forced sterilizations in the name of science.
Don – *Amish stop schooling after the eighth grade in the name of religion.
Chunk – *In 1990 The CDC and Johns Hopkins used black and latino babies as guinea pigs for experimental vaccines without the parents' knowledge – in the name of science.
Don – *Some people have to have therapy because they were told about hell – in the name of religion.
Chunk – *In 1950 The U.S. Navy sprayed bacteria over San Francisco in order to study the spread of the pneumonia-like symptoms – in the name of science.
Your turn….
Comment by chunkdz — May 21, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Wow. Thank-you. It's like pulling teeth.
I'm sorry you've missed the relation. Let me try to explain it again. The importance of the human sacrifice example is its religious justification. People could (and did) object to NBA's racism and eventually abolish it. The Inca sacrifices were backed by religion and religious indoctrination. They were beyond question just as some people consider "you should give your children nightmares for life so they remember what Hell is like" beyond question.
How did that twist your words? You asked how many? Dawkins describes two specific cases that I recall, and gives one name, so you could call her yourself. But you know that, of course, since you read the chapter. Is 2 few enough that we shouldn't worry about it?
Nor does it mean they are illogical. And when we look at them, we see that they are logical, even if you actually succeed in your attempt to prove that they are unsupported.
Presumably because Dawkins considers what you claim is "relevant science" to be irrelevant, not science, or simply unimportant.
There are quack scientists claiming that religion is good for you.
For the Amish. For anyone not motivated by religion it would still be child abuse and the child would be taken away from the parents.
(Dawkins claims it was 6-1.)
Why did you pick those examples of scientific abuse? Because we all agree they're outrageously immoral, and most people would agree that the perpetrators deserve severe punishment.
Yet the person giving children nightmares for life by "showing" them Hell has another demonstration scheduled for next week. (Well, I don't really know that, but the point is he could have a class scheduled, and you'd say, "That's alright, because children need to have the bejeesus scared out of them in the name of Christianity.")
Comment by don provan — May 21, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Aside from the fact that your hyperbole is laughable, I believe it is you and Dawkins who have missed the mark on this.
You may be wondering why Dawkins, a former Professor for the Public Understanding of Science who is extremely well known for backing up his arguments with scientific data, would fail to provide a single shred of hard scientific data to support his claim that religious upbringing is child abuse. That's what we are wondering too. The answer is that there is none – in fact science says the exact opposite.
You see, the Incas possessed a certain zeitgeist, a particular view of nature and the universe. This manifested itself not only in religion, but in art, commerce, and government. Not surprisingly, religious ceremonies were adopted which conformed to the prevailing worldview. These ceremonies would certainly be considered abusive by today's standards.
Compare this to the prevailing zeitgeist of early 20th century America, where the prevailing worldview was that the white race was genetically superior to other races. This worldview manifested itself in religion, science, government, sports, etc.. Not surprisingly, scientific practices were adopted which conformed to the prevailing worldview – beginning with Linnaeus and continuing through Darwin, Galton, Davenport, Laughlin, etc.
These practices would certainly be considered abusive by today's standards.
Where Dawkins goes wrong (and here his prejudices become transparently obvious) is when he impugns religion as the source of the abuse instead of impugning the prevailing worldview of the society. Inca religion simply conformed to the prevailing understanding of their universe, just as modern science conformed to the prevailing understanding of the 20th century. That's why Incas generally seemed to think human sacrifice was ok, and 20th century scientists thought using blacks and hispanics as guinea pigs was ok.
If you think that Dawkins can use the abuses of the Incas to call me a child abuser, then I'll simply use his logic and invoke the abuses of scientists past to smear him as a child abuser.
The upshot being that both arguments are revealed simply to be perversely bigotted. Now hopefully you understand why Dawkins didn't cite a single psychological research paper to defend his bigotry.
It's because it's indefensible.
Comment by chunkdz — May 21, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 am
That is what Dawkins is doing: he is objecting to the prevailing worldview that accepts as normal religions making rules favorable to the them at the expense of the rest of society.
You really should try to get the simplistic idea that Dawkins's point is that Inca religion was bad, therefore modern religions are bad. It's really blinding you entirely.
Comment by don provan — May 22, 2009 @ 3:05 am
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:13 am
We have seen that science has shown “Childhood maltreatment strongly predicts poor psychiatric and physical health outcomes in adulthood” and “People who were abused and neglected during childhood have a higher risk of major depression when they become young adults.”
Science is also helping us to understand why it is that abusing a child can have such long-term harmful effects on one’s mental and physical health:
-Here
They key point here is that “child abuse or neglect changes the hormonal stress response.” Above, I noted a study which informed us that “Early-life disruption of the parent-child relationship, for example, in the form of abuse, neglect or loss, dramatically increases risk for psychiatric, as well as certain medical, disorders in adulthood.”
The problem stems from the early-life disruption of the parent-child relationship. All of this helps us see clearly why Dawkins’s argument is not supported by science, but is also fundamentally false. A religious upbringing is not a disruption of the parent-child relationship. On the contrary, when a parent includes her children in her religious life, this is the opposite of a disruption. In fact, one could say that, compared to a secular upbringing, it adds a dimension of closeness between child and parent. Perhaps is this part of the reason why:
Indeed, a growing body of psychological science is suggesting that religious folks are happier, healthier, and recover better after traumas than nonreligious ones
Of course, once you see this, you can begin to realize the insidious nature of Dawkins’s accusation. Dawkins, who has never shown concern for children apart from incorporating it into his anti-religious agenda, is advocating the disruption of a beneficial bond between parent and child. He is trying to put distance between child and parent.
Comment by MikeGene — May 22, 2009 @ 7:13 am
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
MikeGene wrote:
Exactly! Thank you.
Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in [this case], and many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture.
————————————————-
Education is thus a most powerful ally of [atheistic] humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?
————————————————-
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being…The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be achieved.
————————————————-
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your decendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community."
————————————————-
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
[...]
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 22, 2009 @ 10:09 am
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
If Dawkins wants to challenge the prevailing worldview, then he need only provide the data. The worldview that the Sun was a god was challenged by cosmology. The idea that whites are superior was challenged by genetics.
Dawkins wants to challenge religious upbringing by… ummm, labeling it child abuse and turning a blind eye to all the science which contradicts his assertion?!?
Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
And in response I am objecting to the prevailing worldview that accepts as normal science making rules favorable to them at the expense of the rest of society.
And just like Richard Dawkins I've got plenty of anecdotes, examples, and hearsay stories to back up my claim. And just like Richard Dawkins I'm willing to ignore any data that might contradict my assertion.
Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
"It is evil to describe a child as a
Christian childScience student or aMuslim childBiology student. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue, for example, about teaching abouthelldissection and torturing their minds withhellgory images of dead pigs".Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
"It's a form of child abuse, even worse than physical child abuse. I wouldn't want to teach a young child, a terrifyingly young child, about
hellanatomy when hediesstudies, as it's as bad as many forms of physical abuse."Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
chunkdz,
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 22, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
chunkdz's quote of Theodora Capaldo:
Utilitarian view of fetal pigs, adult frogs, rats, chickens, sheep, cattle = bad.
Utilitarian view of human beings = good.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 22, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Don't get me started!
Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
What about the well known childhood trauma of divorce? I don't see any outrage by our resident bags-of-meat about that.
Oh wait, I know their solution to that. It's the same one I hinted at with my earlier quotes from various personalities – abolition of the family and communal raising of children. Because it takes a village, don't you know.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 22, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
And right this very moment my son is dissecting a pregnant rat in science class. And you and Dawkins say "That's alright, because children need to be traumatized in the name of science".
The poor kid may never be able to watch "Ratatouille" again!
Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
First, Dawkins does raise examples which produce some of these effects. I assume you will concur that those specific cases are really child abuse.
But there's an underlying problem of the indoctrination itself. Is raising a child to be a mindless slave OK as long as it's done in a loving, stress-free environment?
Excuse me? Is this anything but unsupported character assasination?
Once again, you're simply assuming you've won the argument about whether this is child abuse. Yes, of course he's trying to come between parent and child for the same reasons we come between parent and child in other cases of abuse. Questioning the rights of the parents to inflict whatever education on their child is not evidence of some kind of plot to severe the ties between parents and children in general.
Comment by don provan — May 24, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Absolutely not. I'm definitely against anyone being forced, against their will, to dissect a pregnant rat.
Comment by don provan — May 24, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
It's important to keep in mind we're talking about actions which are intentional. If someone got divorced specifically in order to traumatize their children, I think we'd have a problem.
Comment by don provan — May 24, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
The standards of judgement our society has accepted happen to be as much like science as we can make them. Empirical verification is core to our legal system and is our guide to public safety. Is that what you seek to overturn? If not that, what?
One of the reasons Dawkins dislikes religions is because religion can, by design, be used to exempt someone or some thing from being judged under our normal standards.
Comment by don provan — May 24, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Noone argues that parents have unrestriced rights. A parent, for example, who poured boiling water on a child would be guilty of child abuse and a criminal offense. So would a parent who taught a child to pour the boiling water. But some wish to extend the parameters of these no brainer examples of abuse to include teaching a child religious doctrines. That's an intolerable intrusion in a free society and should be resisted at all cost.
Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Even if the religious doctrine involves child sacrifice? No, of course not. So what you mean is "teaching a child religious doctrines which I find acceptable." But how do we judge what's acceptable? As an impartial observer, I'm judging between what you find acceptable and what Dawkins finds acceptable. Dawkins wrote an entire book on his position, but from your side I'm just getting little inklings sprinkled among name calling and hatred.
Comment by don provan — May 24, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
dp:
It has nothing to do with what I find acceptable. What is acceptable is already codified. If a religious teaching falls outside the legal boundary of what is criminal behavior then it is protected by the US Constitution.
Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
don provan wrote:
So you don't care if millions of children are traumatized for unintentional, selfish reasons? You really are just an unfeeling bag of meat, like you implied a few months ago.
One of the most important parts of a parent's job (if not THE most important) is to instill values and morals in his or her children. That job has been labeled "indoctrination" by those people who want unobstructed access to young minds, in order to mold and shape them with their indoctrination. You evidently are either one of these people, or you are one of the indoctrinated.
Either way, you don't really care at all about children, Provan. All of your bloviating about children is Orwellian ducktalk.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 24, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
May 24th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
angryoldfatman:
The most effective indoctrinator in America today is the public school system. Religion critics are not existential do your own thing types. They are rabid would be indoctrinators of their own viewpoints who see religious parents as a barrier between them and their innocent offspring. (An evil laugh from Vincent Price would be a suitable background effect).
Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Counter-example: teaching a child that its role for life is being a slave to his parents. Please try again.
Comment by don provan — May 25, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I care, I just don't think it's practical to make it illegal to be selfish.
I've never implied any such thing. You inferred it incorrectly based on your own foolish assumptions.
This isn't about teaching morals. Dawkins doesn't complain one little bit about teaching morals. This is about indoctrinating children into a religion before they are old enough to have any say in the matter.
Nonsense. The goal is allowing the child to choose. Dawkins concedes that there's a very real problem of an alternate indoctrination; after all, Christian indoctrination in public schools was the norm in America until the middle of the 20th century, and even further into the century in Britain, so Dawkins can't very well ignore the possibility of a mistake in the opposite direction. And Dawkins suggests alternatives specifically designed to avoid that problem, although, as I've already said, I don't really think they're practical.
Well, yes, I'm afraid you have a very good point here. But to express this from Dawkins's point of view: have you considered that you're defending this practice because you yourself were similarly indoctrinated, either as a child or as an adult?
Why do you guys feel a need to end every post with insults and name calling? For the hundredth, I don't advocate this. And you have absolutely no clue in the world how much I care about children.
Comment by don provan — May 25, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Absolutely. And many Christians are still smarting over having that facility taken away from them.
But I've already proposed an alternative that's entirely voluntary, completely independent of any public institutions. So why don't you tell me what's wrong with that approach instead of imagining fictious indoctrination centers under Dawkins's exclusive control?
Comment by don provan — May 25, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I asked:
Bradford replied:
That's true. Where such abuse doesn't happen is typically where cultural influences have led religious people not to take their holy books too literally and to cherry pick whatever they like. At face value, the bible and the koran are quite mysoginistic, as I'm sure you'll agree. Unfortunately, there are still billions of people who are not so enlightened as you yet and who take biblical and koranic advice quite seriously. To the detriment of women.
Ah, a little personal punch below the belt. Perhaps it's rather the other way around: the religious mindset to unquestioningly follow orders from "above" is what made the holocaust possible.
Comment by Raevmo — May 25, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
dp:
Slavery is unconstitutional.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Not at all. I'm trying to make you aware that jerks who stuff people into ovens could care less about morality- Judeo-Christian brand or any other. What they are able to do is demonize a group of people and make them less than human in their own eyes.
I've found the opposite to be true. Take a broad section of any society, irreligious in their outlook, and their behavior becomes entirely predictable given knowledge of the cultural values they are immersed in. I see it at Telic Thoughts. A complete lack of original thinking among most ID critics and a slavish devotion to the values in vogue within western societies.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
You've got your history backwards. Education was of the homespun variety or dominated by religious institutions prior to the advent of public schools which made it possible to push values at odds with Judeo-Christian moral principles.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
A child that's "voluntarily" "devoted" (because of indoctrination) wouldn't be covered by generic laws against slavery.
Besides, your point was that religious practices were protected by the Constitution. Now you're adding "except in some cases"?
Comment by don provan — May 25, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
May 25th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Religious groups are no different from others in that none are exempt from the consequences of the criminal code.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 1:33 am
You sure are squealing like a stuck pig.
Really now, all this fuss over atoms in a temporary state.
Shucks!
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 26, 2009 @ 1:33 am
May 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I don't know who you're quoting, but I didn't say that.
If that's all you think of children as, then there's not much more to say.
Comment by don provan — May 26, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I think you mean nullasalus is "squealing like a stuck pig".
Comment by Zachriel — May 26, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Oh. I gather this previous statement has a typo in it, then? It appears to say the exact opposite:
Comment by don provan — May 26, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Don, when I wrote that: If a religious teaching falls outside the legal boundary of what is criminal behavior then it is protected by the US Constitution, I was indicating that what is inside the legal boundary is criminalized behavior. If it is not criminal then it is protected.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Bradford,
OK. I see how I misread the first one. Thanks for clearing that up.
So this indicates that you think Dawkins's argument is perfectly reasonable, you're just questioning the veracity of this examples. If intructors in Hell were really traumatizing children, they should be put in jail. And if Amish parents are really denying their children the education our governments demand, their children should be taken away from them. Correct?
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Don Provon:
That’s because I have won the argument about whether this is child abuse. Even you, the most vocal defender of Dawkins around here, has walked away from his central claim and agree with me:
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
What do you think Don Provan? Should the government step in and remove the children from Amish parents?
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
We're discussing Dawkins's position, not mine. You haven't even entered the ring to face Dawkins's position.
Why are you so interested in my worthless opinion? I just want consistency: a child denied the legally required education should be taken away from their parents regardless of their parents' religion.
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Don, that last comment quoted me saying something I did not write.
Comment by Bradford — May 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Somehow I put your name in when I meant "Mike Gene". Sorry for the confusion. I'd fix it if I could.
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Here is what you wrote Don: “I already answered this and told you that I do not agree with Dawkins that religious indoctrination should be considered child abuse.”
Entailed in this statement is the fact that Dawkins’s position is that religious indoctrination should be considered child abuse. You don’t agree with it. That even such a vocal supporter of Dawkins as you can’t agree with his position tells us the position has been faced and defeated.
You don’t like to answer questions, do you?
So, you think that in the name of “consistency,” the State should rip the children away from Amish parents, put them in foster homes, all so they can be forced to attend a public school. Why is it that so many of Dawkins’s fans seem to be cut from an authoritarian clothe?
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
When did I become I supporter? I thought I've said all along I don't agree with him. Anyway, the fact that I disagree with his conclusion tells us nothing about his arguments. But, look, if you want to use me as an excuse to avoid facing his case, be my guest.
I've answered many of your irrelevant questions, so I can't see how you could think that there's something special about this one that makes me not want to answer it. The hypothetical case is Amish parents doing something that any other parent would lose custody over.
I think the parent's religion should be irrelevant. Why do you think it should give them special rights other parents don't have?
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
No, that's not my view. That's the atheist view. And your view, if you're an atheist. And you've never addressed it. Why is Dawkins (and you, apparently) so outraged over this perceived injustice with regards to childrens' welfare if children are merely atoms in a temporary state, with no eternal existence? But perhaps I got him (and you) wrong. If they are not merely atoms in a temporary state or configuration, what else are they?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
No it's not.
They're children.
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Is that suppose to be a (rational) argument? In the atheist worldview, "children" is merely a label for atoms in a certain configuration. What else do you mean?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
My argument's irrational? What do I mean? I mean they're children. Why do you continually claim they're something else with a lesser value than children?
In the Chrisian worldview, "children" is merely a label for atoms in a certain configuration with a soul. Why do you care what happens to them?
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
KB: Is that suppose to be a (rational) argument? … What else do you mean?
As I said, in your worldview (and Dawkins) "children" is a label you put on a particular temporary configuration of atoms. You seem to be saying that this particular temporary configuration of atoms is "special." Why?
Because they have a super-natural, and eternal aspect that transcends time and space, and are valuable to the Core of Reality, the very Thing that gave you the capacity to perceive value at all. The value is not merely an assessment of your brains of full of atoms, it's an absolute value. Beyond all human opinion. Does your worldview think that children are absolutely valuable and to be protected beyond all human opinion? If so, why? Where does the Absolute Moral Imperative come from that you have floating around your cranium for these temporary configuration of atoms (as your view sees them.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 8:33 am
It is a very curious phenomena. I've noticed that many organisms, e.g. humans, treat their young as important or special—sometimes almost as special as themselves, which are also a particular temporary configuration of atoms. The latter can be tested by damaging the organism, e.g. putting a hot poker in their eye. They'll go to all manner of physical activities to prevent it.
We can relate the response to nerve impulses being sent to and from the brain. It's apparently an evolved response. Those organisms that don't seem to mind e.g. a hot poker in the eye tend not to leave as many progeny. As I said, they often have a similar response to damage to their children.
Comment by Zachriel — May 28, 2009 @ 8:33 am
May 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Huh? Dawkins puts the label on the same thing you put the label on. What are you talking about?
Of course it's special. That's why it has a label. In addition, children are important and valuable for many reasons ranging from being the future to being helpless.
Oh, I see. You have an unsupportable system that allocates value based on religious authority. I can imagine how it would confuse you when people reject the Church's authority and come up with a rational view of morality. You've been raised your entire life to think there's no other way to judge value. The Church likes it when you can't even imagine a competing source for morality. That makes it way easier to feed you what it wants you to think.
You've really been snookered. Morality comes from humans. That's just a fact. You just blindly follow the morality the Church feeds you, while Dawkins questions whether that's the best morality for us to adopt.
Comment by don provan — May 28, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Don't you and Dawkins hold a philosophy that sees no absolute purpose to the universe, no absolute morality, etc? Why should you care about the future? You're going to die. And so is everyone in the future. Is there some absolute moral imperative that you concern yourself with it? Or is it just how you happen to feel? Putting aside feelings, what is the rational core to all of your concern?
Well, on one religious authority, Jesus Christ, yes. Whether it is unsupportable or not remains to be seen.
What church might that be?
You view of morality is rational? OK, I'll bite. In fact, this is what I've been trying to get you to express. What's the rational basis for your morality? Are you saying that you've found an objective way to get from an is to an ought? If so, let's hear it.
Is this your rational scientific assessment? Based on what information about me?
OK, and I'm asking for the rational basis for yours, right down the last brass button.
What church?
Dawkins can question anything he likes. And he has the liberty to make stupid statements and look foolish.
BTW, how do you feel about minors having sex with adults or other children if they want to? Is it child abuse to prevent them from doing so?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 28, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
It's desire.
I don't think morality is the correct terminology to describe a mare nursing her foal, or a lion killing his predecessor's cubs when taking over a pride.
Comment by Zachriel — May 28, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
And that is the basis for all human morality?
Does human altruism fall into this category? I mean real sacrifice of selfish interest for another, without thought or expectation of compensation. Is that rational? Irrational herd instinct? Something else?
The essence of human morality is the sense of ought. What rational basis for any ought exists in the atheistic worldview?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 28, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Without desire there is no fire. Rationality alone is not sufficient reason to rise up—but hunger is.
Morality concerns human attitudes about human behaviors. Compassion, comradeship, loyalty, rationality, learning and culture can all influence moral codes.
It's desire.
It's desire.
Comment by Zachriel — May 28, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
May 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
So you don't think there could be a rational basis for morality? That's a good start, since it means you are tacitly admitting that the basis for your morality is not rational.
If you can manage to think about it, you might be able to see that your morality is based on two things:
1. Accepting the morality taught by your religion.
2. Pretending it is beyond question by labeling it "absolute".
No matter what the basis is for my morality, what makes this basis of your morality better?
Dawkins rejects your claim of "absolute purpose". But he still sees purpose.
Comment by don provan — May 29, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
May 29th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I didn't say it was either rational or scientific, but it's a good guess. Since I understand how Christianity works, the description fits most Christians, but you might be an exception. The reason I doubt it is your complete lack of ability to stand back and question the fundamental Christian assumptions at work here. For example, you sling "absolute" around as if it has some actual meaning, but in reality it's nothing but a block to keep you from asking questions. What makes Jesus "absolute" except that Christianity teaches He is?
Comment by don provan — May 29, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
May 30th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Is his rejection based on an obsolute standard? if so it's contridictory, If not why should I care what he thinks?
a bold claim of deity backed and verified by an unique objective historic event and my own personal experience.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 30, 2009 @ 11:10 am
May 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The truth of the claim. If he is God the inference follows.
Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2009 @ 11:14 am
May 31st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
No.
I don't expect you to care. But if you thought about it, you might realize that your "absolute standard" is declared absolute by its own source. If Dawkins were to call his own standard "absolute", we'd all laugh; when you call Jesus's standard "absolute", Dawkins laughs.
That depends on what exactly you mean by "God". Obviously if you mean "the source of absolutes", then you win by definition but otherwise are saying nothing interesting. For any definition of "God" that doesn't beg the question, we can recognize that we only consider His morality absolute because He tells us it's absolute.
Comment by don provan — May 31, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
May 31st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
DP
What are you talking about? There is objective evidence that Jesus is the absolute standard. The fact that you reject that evidence in order to continue your rebellion does not change the objective nature of that evidence.
of course we would if he provided no evidence that his standard was absolute.
.
Such a dismissive act in the face of objective evidence of error is the very definition of folly.
Yet another example of the Bill Clinton school of argument. Your side is so predictable.
DP no matter how you try to twist it, words have meanings and "God" can not mean provisional.
Do you even know what begging the question is?
There is no definition of God that includes the possibility that he would not be absolute. If a being is not absolute it is not God.
To try and define “God” in any other way is to destroy our only means of communication, the English language. That’s quite a price to pay in order for you to continue to live as if you are the ultimate authority isn’t it?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 31, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 4:14 am
No, there really isn't.
No, that's not the definition of the word "God", that's the declaration of religions. But you won't be able to understand that. You can't even imagine the word "God" having any meaning other than the reflection of your religious "training".
Dawkins doesn't claim he has an absolute standard, he merely says that the Christian standard isn't really absolute.
Comment by don provan — June 1, 2009 @ 4:14 am
June 1st, 2009 at 7:11 am
DP,
You do know that closing your eyes and covering your ears does not make the evidence go away don’t you?
No all a particular religion can do is declare its particular object of worship to be “God”. Organizations can’t change the definitions of words.
That’s the beauty of language, no matter what Orwell’s big brother thought organizations can’t define words.
Once again this statement is either a contridiction or merely the equivelent of Dawkins saying
"I like cookies" either way it's not an arguement.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 1, 2009 @ 7:11 am
June 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Yes. You know that pretending there's objective evidence when there isn't doesn't make evidence come into existence, don't you?
Well, then, I guess we really do need to look at the objective evidence, then. It is logically impossible for finite beings such as ourselves to have objective evidence of the absolute, so if you insist that is the only possible definition of God, then it's clear your objective evidence cannot exist.
I've presented the argument. Your counter argument is the equivalent of "is, too."
Comment by don provan — June 1, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Who is pretending?
The evidence for the resurrection is objective by every historic standard. I suppose a hyper skeptic could claim that it is insufficient to his satisfaction to prove the event happened but no sane person can claim it’s nonexistent.
That is unless you denied objectivity all together. To do so would mean abandoning science surely your petty rebellion is not that important to you?
What? Of course it’s logically possible. To claim it’s not is to prove my point for me.
Logical impossibilities are absolute by definition.
Again you prove my point. To say X cannot exist is to make an absolute statement.
On the contrary I’ve shown that your argument is at best merely an unsupported subjective statement of preference and at worst logical nonsense.
As for my argument I need only point to the resurrection of the God/Man and rest my case.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 1, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
This is proof that a man rose from the dead. How do we get from there to "absolute morality"?
You believe this because that's what you've been taught to believe. It really doesn't make any sense as an argument. "I have faith that this is true," is the argument that makes sense.
Comment by don provan — June 1, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Jesus claimed to be the absolute standard of morality (God) and proved it by rising from the dead. this is not rocket science,
pay attention.
How do you know why I believe it? How do you know what I’ve been taught to believe?
No, that Jesus has objectively proven that he is the absolute standard of morality is the only argument that makes sense.
“Faith” is the proper response to that proof but in and of itself it offers no support to any argument .
On the other hand all You like all NAs have is “faith”
You have "faith" that your position is correct but your misguided trust in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary convinces no one.
In fact it strikes the rest of us ,the majority of the world, as silly and childish.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 1, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 am
FMM:
You must be extremely easily overwhelmed. The so-called evidence is nothing but hearsay upon hearsay and subjective wishful thinking.
What hubris to pretend speaking for the majority of the world.
Comment by Raevmo — June 2, 2009 @ 6:43 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 am
Ive heard skeptics say similar things about the moon landing. Your appraisal of the strength of the evidence does not change it’s existence or it’s objective nature but it does bring up two questions.
1) Can you name a single event in the life of a person from antiquity that has stronger evidence to recommend it to us?
2) How’s the book coming?
I find this statement funny after you have just called into question the verdict reached by billions of people regarding the evidence for the resurrection .
That the majority of the world believe that there is such a thing as absolute morality is not controversial. As is the observation that the relativistic approach is not catching on like wild fire
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 7:02 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 am
Many historians agree that Jesus probably existed, but the objective evidence is not sufficient to support the particulars.
The assassination of Caesar.
While vehemently disagreeing as to what that "absolute morality" might be. (And your "majority" is granting that all those counted as Christians and Muslims hold orthodox beliefs in "absolute morality", something that is not necessarily the case.)
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2009 @ 7:46 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 am
Evidence contrary to atheism is evident in the world around us. No hearsay about it. BTW, first hand accounts are not hearsay.
The rest of the world speak for themselves. They are billions of Muslims, Christians…
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2009 @ 7:48 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 am
Any historian that would waffle on the matter of his existence is incompetent or dishonest.
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2009 @ 7:51 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
Quite an argument. Historians who disagree are incompetent or dishonest.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2009 @ 7:56 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 am
It's not an argument. It's self-evident to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the supporting evidence and standards by which historians assess evidence. Do you deny gravity or think that a physicist who does is honest and competent?
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2009 @ 8:00 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 am
The vast majority of biologists support the Theory of Evolution. Do you deny the Theory of Evolution?
The effects of gravity are directly observed. Many scientists believe current theory is inadequate.
As I said, many historians accept the historical existence of an itinerant preacher named Jesus, but disagree as to what particulars are actually supported by the limited evidence available.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2009 @ 8:09 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
I did not write current theory. But denying the underlying concept of gravity is an indicator that something is amiss.
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2009 @ 8:15 am
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
How did raising from the dead prove he was the absolute standard of morality? Isn't it just because he says so?
Well, again, I'm guessing, but it seems more and more obvious. So in what way am I wrong?
I really apologize for saying this, but this is the most obvious evidence that you've been thoroughly brainwashed yet. This isn't even an argument, it's just a statement of Church othodoxy.
Well, here I think you're confusing "argument" with "reason to believe". Yes, I understand faith does not preceed belief, but we're talking about valid arguments to convince others that do not believe nor have faith that your standard of morality is the one we should use. "Jesus is the standard because Jesus told me he's the standard" is laughable as an argument in that context.
(As an aside, I found it very interesting in the other thread where you admit that the interpretation of the Bible changes over time. What kind of absolute standard is that?)
On the contrary, I consistently and regularly say that I have no idea what position is correct. And I try to convince no one of anything, I only ask questions that you seem unable to answer. Why does that make you angry?
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Zach
We’ve already had this discussion Zach
Please present the equivalent of an account written by an eyewitness or else be quiet and let those interested in actual discussion talk.
The absolute standard is what ever God says it is by definition
Are you even listening? That is not the argument at all. The argument is
Jesus is the standard because he is God. This is not rocket science
What?
an interpretation of the Bible is not the Bible and the Bible is not Christ
peace
DP
Are you really so slow as to not understand ?
The absolute standard is what ever God says it is by definition
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
It's the Gospel. The Gospel is the argument. always has been.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
You have yet to demonstrait that you even understand any position other than your own silly subjective preference.
What questions? All Ive seen are unsupported assertions. that dont even address others's arguments.
What ever gave you the idea I was angry?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
How about a quote from a very early presentation of the argument just to give you every chance to understand.
quote;
Acts 17:31…… He has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
nuff said
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
As long as you think this is a statement of fact rather than an assumption, we'll never get any further. All you're doing is demonstrating how efficient Christian indoctrination is.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
DP
That God (if he exists) is the absolute standard for morality is a definitional axiom not a stament of fact or a assumption.
To treat definitions as statements of fact or assumptions is to undermine the only medium we have for discussion (language) and condemn yourself to a solitary existence where you only talk to yourself.
Surely your petty rebellion is not worth that much to you.
If by efficient you mean logical and by indoctrination you mean truth I suppose I could agree with you.
See what happens when you give up on definitions
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
But your proof of existence does not support God in this sense. You've only generated proof of existence for a being that can come back to life and produce a convincing Gospel. You then accepted that being's claim of being absolute without the additional proof necessary to support the claim. At least, that's what you've described so far.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
You asked again, so I answered again. I reposted it not for your benefit, but for those new to your form of argumentation. You're comparing the assassination of the controversial political leader and military conqueror of a highly advanced and literate society, on the steps of the Forum the center of power of a vast empire, in public as the Senate assembled, scribes, historians, scholars, an assassination followed by speeches, an autopsy, a prolonged civil war, and the end of the Roman Republic—to the life of an itinerant preacher from an obscure province who left no written records. That doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist. But it certainly highlights your overwrought position.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Zach
And you offered no comparable evidence………..again.
No eyewitness testimony of the event or of phyiscal evidence resulting from it, nothing but official accounts written many years after the events in question by people with a vested interest in presenting a particular narrative slanted to please their benefactors.
Do you see why I get impatient with you?
DP
If Jesus is a being in this sense and not God he is an extremely powerful liar and deceiver bent on our destruction and with the unhindered power to accomplish those ends.
If such a being was to exist we could not trust anything. Our thoughts and our senses could easily be manipulated by such a malevolent force.
The price you must pay to keep the resurrection and deny it’s intended implications is to condemn your self to a solitary existence of a brain in a vat aka Descartes only worse.
Surely your petty rebellion is not worth that much to you
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Not necessarily. In fact, he could be everything you think he is with the one exception being that he's mistaken about being absolute.
Very insightful. How would you rule that out other than by wishful thinking?
If I'm in a vat, I'm in a vat. Saying, "Gee, it would be really bad to be in that vat," doesn't change whether I am.
You're the one that's made the excellent case for rebellion. Me, I just go with the flow.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Historical evidence depends on the consistency of multiple lines of evidence. Early histories were based on interviews with witnesses and other contemporary documentary evidence. Sorry there are no surviving newsreels, but I am quite certain that the vast majority of readers are aware that Caesar and the end of the Roman Republic are well-established in history. By insisting otherwise, you undermine whatever other point you may be trying to make.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
DP
He can not just be mistaken. The real God (the absolute) must be powerless or unwilling to stop his deception of the world. All that changes is his intentions not the horrible result of them
Read Thomas Reid and start living consistently as a brain in a vat and get back to me to let me know how that works for you.
So that’s what we’ve finally come to. The choice is Christianity or hyper skepticism I glad we’ve established that.
The sad thing is that your rebellion has caused you to abandoned Your precious science as well common sense.
Now since you believe can’t know anything at all please live consistently and quit bothering others by pretending you can.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
so were the writings of the NT with the noticeable addition of eyewitness testimony. Thanks for proving my point for me.
peace
.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
You know as much as I do.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
The difference is, of course, that the history of Caesar's life and death is based a vast amount of data and consistency across multiple lines of evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 am
That's not a difference Zachriel. It's a parallel. Multiple lines of evidence for events depicted in the NT includes numerous eyewitnesses, secular accounts, ancient, non-scriptural, written source documents and archeological evidence.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2009 @ 9:03 am
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
The difference is that there is vastly more historical evidence for Caesar than Jesus. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous. Caesar's every move was a matter of utmost importance to a vast Empire. He commanded legions, conquered Gaul, annexed Egypt, wrote memoirs, was a constant source of contemporaneous gossip and political intrigue, letters, speeches, entire histories written about his life and times.
Jesus lived and died in obscurity in a remote province, and only a few took note of those events until much later. The Gospels are the most important early documents. None of this means Jesus wasn't an historical personage, only that the historical evidence is scant with regard to particulars.
Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2009 @ 9:36 am
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Zachriel:
The particulars of significance surived: Christ's teachings and the manner of death. The Gospels comply with historic norms. They are discounted because they point to deity. IOW, the rules of the game are set to slant evidence away from that perspective. This in turn leads people to accept or deny particulars based on their belief or disbelief in Christ.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2009 @ 9:47 am
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Statues and coins with Caesar's image were made during his lifetime. There were contemporaneous coins of Vercingetorix and of the Ides of March to celebrate those events, a form of political advertising. They built Roman colonies in Gaul after the conquest. And after three thousand years, Egypt no longer had a pharoah.
No one is discounting the evidence. The fact is that the historical evidence for Jesus is much less than that for Caesar—contrary to fifth monarchy man's previous asssertion.
Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2009 @ 10:00 am
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Zachriel:
Indeed, the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and especially his alleged resurrection and other "miracles", consists entirely of second-hand or nth-hand (n>2) "testimony" written by members of his fan club. Only the brain-washed consider that "objective evidence", let alone "overwhelming". Or is that the "petty rebel" in me talking again?
As for Wright's (tedious, sorry) book, fmm, so far it pretty much boils down to "it's very hard to believe that so many early christians would consistently believe in Jesus' resurrection if it weren't true". Entirely unconvincing to me. But I'm sure you'll tell me I must have misunderstood Wright.
Comment by Raevmo — June 3, 2009 @ 10:43 am
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Raevmo:
Assume Jesus did heal the sick and cure the blind for the sake of argument. He would attract followers fpr that very reason. Contemporary celebrities attract followers by doing much less than that. Then 2000 years later debunkers would decry the testimony of the "fan club." As I indicated to Zach the very nature of the claims would ensure their lack of acceptance no matter how many witnesses or their reliability.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
To the extent they are discounted, they are discounted because they were written by people that wanted to spread the myth, and selected for survival by people that wanted to present a consistent story that wasn't as obvious from the full set of original reports.
I mean, really, be serious: outside the context of Christian believers, the Gospels are easily explained as propaganda. Is that really what you mean by "numerous eyewitnesses, secular accounts, ancient, non-scriptural, written source documents"? If not, why are you even bothering to defend them? Just move on to your real evidence.
Yes, and some of those contemporary celebrities also think they are gods. Do we believe them?
Comment by don provan — June 3, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Zach:
That was not my assertion at all. I asked
A single event is not the same as a whole life. I will grant that there is lots of evidence for the existence of Caesar but that is entirely beside the point .
I had a specific point about a particular event and you have once again demonstrated it for me. Thanks for playing
Raevmo
This a blatant false hood
That we have an eyewitness testimony of the resurrection (1cor 15:8-10) is undisputed by any historic scholar.
To deny this is to risk the charge of deliberate willful blindness at best.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 3, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
DP
I agree
The difficulty for you arises when you claim to know nothing but act as if you do.
It’s called inconsistency and it is a sure mark of a failed argument.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 3, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Admitting Caesar lives, we know that Caesar died. So no. It's not beside the point.
Every word and act of Caesar was of great interest to people, powerful people who ruled a vast Empire. He died on the steps of the Forum as the Senate assembled, surrounded by scribes and scholars, and setting off a series of Civil Wars. They did an autopsy on his body and counted the stab wounds. There were even coins minted celebrating Caesar's assassination on the Ides of March. (Guess how we know they were contemporaneous.) It is absurd to continue to insist that the pervasive historical evidence for Caesar's life and death is less than that for Jesus.
Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Zach
This is a logical implication and not evidence for an event so yes it is beside the point
After again repeating second hand accounts written years after the assassination by people with an obvious incentive to present a certain narrative and linking to a physical artifact minted months or years after the event by people with the same bias Zach says
Once again none of this constitutes comparable evidence to eyewitness testimony and again Zach ignores me and goes off chasing rabbits about Caesar's life and death.
I hope you understand why this will be my last response to you on this subject unless you choose to actually answer my challenge.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 3, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
June 4th, 2009 at 7:48 am
The event in question is Caesar's death. As you have admitted that Caesar lived, then it is only a matter of how and when he died. Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. We know the date, the Ides of March. We know that perpetrators, Brutus, Cassius and others. We know the place, in public, the steps of the Roman Forum as the Senate assembled. The conspirators were proud of their actions and gave speeches to justify their murder. The news was sent across the Empire. Brutus even minted a commemorative coin. An autopsy was performed. Histories were written. A civil war ensued. The Roman Republic ended in all but name.
Your handwaving is remarkable. I will say that. We could point to any number of well-documented historical events, battles and buildings. I chose the death of Caesar because it was the first known autopsy, done by the Greek physician Antistius. And the assassination was in public in the very heart of the Empire by important and powerful men who afterwards bragged about their bloody deed. And because the vast majority of readers know the life and death of Caesar is well-established by historical evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 7:48 am
June 4th, 2009 at 8:23 am
fmm:
OK, I was wrong. We have the alleged first-hand testimony of one man, Paul, who claims to have seen the risen Jesus. That's it? So we have to assume that (1) Paul actually wrote that, (2) if he did, that he didn't lie, (3) if he didn't lie that he wasn't mistaken and/or nuts. Is there independent evidence to confirm those assumptions?
You say this is undisputed by any historic scholar, but that is of course a blatant falsehood. You obviously have a private definition of historic scholar (namely (s)he who agrees with your interpretation).
Comment by Raevmo — June 4, 2009 @ 8:23 am
June 4th, 2009 at 10:42 am
A couple of additional points.
I understood that Caesar was a descendent of Venus. What evidence do you have for the existence of Caesar that will withstand a vigorous waving of the hand?
You may have a point there. Brutus should have had the commemorative coins already minted so he could have handed them out at the time of the murder. Modern marketing!
-
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:–
Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more.
Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 10:42 am
June 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
dp:
Inserting your prejudice into your conclusion.
Original reports? One of the points of the Gospels meeting historic norms is that their narratives do not conflict with other respected evidence which includes other written sources and archeological finds.
Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 11:54 am
June 4th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Bradford:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the narratives do not conflict with other sources. If I were to invent a myth (à la L Ron Hubbard or Saint Paul) about a god-like figure who lived in, say, New York City, I would make sure that in my narrative I would have my facts straight about NYC. That doesn't make the myth any more plausible, does it?
Comment by Raevmo — June 4, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
June 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
You're right Raevmo. It would not make that myth more plausible. I've spent considerable time studying the historic evidence for Christianity. Not surprising in that it is an obvious area of interest to me. There are subtlties to this topic. I'd blog on it but this is primarily a blog focused on ID. I'll devote some thought to an occasional post on this subject although it would be helpful if readers would at least try to approach the topic with an open mind.
Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
June 4th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
How so? What prejudice? Weren't the Gospels written by people that were spreading the news about Jesus? Whether we believe the myth is true or not, we simply cannot deny that the Gospels were written by people who believed the myth to be true and wanted to spread it, can we?
I was speaking of the alternative Gospels which were rejected for inclusion in the Bible.
Consistency with other sources that say things unrelated to the claims — we were discussing specifically the claim of absolute standard — is irrelevant.
Comment by don provan — June 4, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
June 4th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Let's not lose the context here. You are the skeptic here. Dawkins believes in observations backed by empirical verification. You are making a claim which you cannot back up to those standards. You claim I act like I know nothing, but, of course, the position Dawkins is coming from is the exact opposite: he is sure about what he knows, and your claims don't make the grade.
You can read Dawkins's thoughts on your historical evidence for yourself, but I'll stick to the simple and obvious point that your argument is circular:
1. Jesus is the absolute standard because He rose from the dead.
2. We know that proves He's the absolute standard because He told us that would prove He was.
3. And we believe Him about the validity of the proof because He's the absolute standard.
You accuse me of hyper-skepticism, but it's only your argument I'm rejecting because it is invalid, at least as I have understood it and presented it above. I've been listening carefully to your points, and I will continue to listen as you explain to me what I'm missing in your argument.
Comment by don provan — June 4, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
June 4th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Zach this comment is not addressed to you but only to others to illustrate your continuing inability to have an actual intelligent discussion
None of those things would be “single event in the life of a person from antiquity” you are amazing
Raevmo
No modern scholar disputes that Paul wrote 1st Corinthians
Paul believed that to lie about this event would be tantamount to blasphemy (1Cor 15:15) the worst sin a Jew could commit and more than enough to insure eternity in hell. No one has suggested that Paul did not think hell was a very real place so the threat was real to him
To say that Paul had tremendous motive to be sure that he was not mistaken is the understatement of a life time. The 500 plus coWitnesses would eliminate that possibility to any unbiased person
Is there independent evidence to confirm those assumptions?
yes if you look
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 4, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
June 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
DP
The resurrection meets those standards the fact that Dawkins (and you) reject it is evidence that he does not believe what you say he does.
I’m not talking to Dawkins I’m talking to you and you implied that you could not even be sure you were not a brain in a vat.
I’ve read Dawkins unlike your side I believe it’s important to understand what others have to say
That is not at all my argument. My argument can be stated thus
Major premise …..The only thing that can defeat Death is God (The absolute standard)
Minor premise …. Jesus defeated death
Conclusion…….Jesus is God (The absolute standard)
Nothing circular here
What you have presented is not my argument. and you have rejected all objectivity when you claimed that Jesus could claim to be God, be resurrected and not be God.
All of it apparently.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 4, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
June 4th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
this statement
should read
The 500 plus cowitnesses would eliminate the possibility of the sighting being a madman’s hallucination to any unbiased person
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 4, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Hey DP
To try and help you to understand the Christian argument I’ve rephrased it and replaced the theological terminology with scientific jargon.
Here it is
Major premise
All provisional (non absolute) entities are subject the second law of thermodynamics
Notice Jesus did not need to tell me this I know this from science.
Minor premise
Jesus’ resurrection demonstraits that he is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics
Notice that Jesus did not need to tell me this it is an historic fact with better supporting evidence than any other single event in the life of an individual in all of antiquity
Conclusion
Jesus is not a provisional entity
notice again that Jesus did not need to tell me this. It is a conclusion that flows necessarily from the premises
Does that help?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2009 @ 7:19 am
June 5th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Thermodynamics applies to matter and energy. It's not clear what empirical distinction you are drawing. Are you saying Jesus was not born of flesh and blood?
There is nothing about biological life or death which violates the laws of thermodynamics. We might conjecture some sort of life-giving process that is consistent with thermodynamics. It just requires a source of energy to do the work, e.g. a defibrillator which injects energy into a heart.
I thought the whole point is that He lived and died as a man. And that anyone who follows Him can live eternally. Hence, His body would be provisional, but then miraculously resurrected.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2009 @ 7:40 am
June 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
fmm:
I don't think so. How do you know Paul didn't hallucinate those 500 (nice round number BTW) witnesses or simply made them up to sound more convincing? People do that kind of stuf all the time, you know (500 weapons of mass destruction come to mind). Does anybody else mention those 500 witnesses?
Comment by Raevmo — June 5, 2009 @ 11:06 am
June 5th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
A battle is not an historical event? How very odd. Entire wars are sometimes considered as events, as in The war is among the most important events in Greek mythology. or The Battle of the Milvian Bridge in which he defeated Maxantius, his most powerful rival, was a landmark event in his life.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Obviously the problem is that you and Dawkins disagree about whether it meets his standard, not that I misunderstand Dawkins's position.
Anyway, unimportant, since we are not talking about the resurrection, but rather the claim of absolute standard. I'm willing to stipulate that you've proved the resurrection happened.
What I implied was that if your assertion was true — that I'd have to believe I was a brain in a vat if I rejected your claim of proof of an absolute standard — then I'd have to believe I was a brain in a vat, because I have no choice but to reject your proof because of its logical flaws.
All the available evidence suggests that I'm a person in a body, actually.
Thanks for clearing that up. So you are simply assuming the desired conclusion. Forgive me for thinking you were making a more subtle mistake.
Comment by don provan — June 5, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Thank-you. I appreciate it.
What makes you say resurrection requires overcoming the second law of thermodynamics?
"Absolute" is not the opposite of "provisional". And being absolute is not proof of being a source of absolute morality. Are you imagining something about being absolute makes it impossible to lie?
Yes, thank you. For some reason, I wasn't seeing the depths of the assumptions you were making that you somehow think are not subject to question.
Comment by don provan — June 5, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Raevmo
This sort of question makes me doubt you’ve read much of the book
1st Corinthians is not a secret diary but a letter read publicly to a community of people living very near to the events in question some of who doubted his claims All that would have been required to verify what Paul said is to send a similar letter to the folks in Jerusalem inquiring about what Paul said.
Scholars have convincingly dated the formula that Paul recites containing the information about the 500 witnesses to from within months to at most five years of the event. At least one of the witnesses mentioned in it (Peter) was a frequent visitor to the same community.
All of his claims were easily verifiable and the Corinthians had motive and opportunity to do so. Paul often charged his hearers to test what he said against the facts
The very presence of the account testifies convincingly to it’s accuracy
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
hey all
Zach frustrates the heck out of me I have no way to know if he really is as dense as he appears or if he just wants to get my goat.
Of course he knows that a battle is not an event in the life of an individual but in a nation or army.
If he wanted to meet my challenge all he would have to do is present to evidence that a specific individual was present at a specific battle but instead he tries to take us down yet another rabbit trial.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Resurrection is not resuscitation. It is not the reanimating of a corpse but the transformation of a lifeless decaying corpse into a non-coruptable body.
The subject is much to indepth for us to cover here. I sugest you read a little and get back to me. The best place to start IMHO is Wright's book.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Actually acourding to my thesaurus it is but no matter feel free to subsutute any of the following terms if you like.
circumscribed, limited, restricted, tractable, accountable, complaisant, compliant, restricted, submissive, yielding
the result is the same in any case.
Yes it is. To be non absolute in any area is to be non absolute. Are you going back to the change definitions game?
No except in the sense that if lying is a failing then a being that lies is not absolute by definition.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I have no ulterior motives. You use private definitions that result in confusion and frustration. For instance, your use of the word "event".
Most readers of English have no problem parsing this sentence. "The Battle of the Milvian Bridge in which he defeated Maxantius, his most powerful rival, was a landmark event in his life."
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
OK. In that case, why do you say your evidence supports resurrection when the reports only amount to resuscitation? Certainly the eyewitnesses couldn't possibly have confirmed even for themselves that the resuscitated body was non-corruptable, so we don't even have to worry about whether they reported such.
And, even so, I still don't see why you claim that such a transformation must violate the second law of thermodynamics. You have no way whatsoever to judge what the thermodynamics of the process were.
The point is that being none of those things doesn't make one absolute in the sense of an absolute moral standard. Not provisional, not circumscribed, not limited, not restricted, not tractable, not accountable, not complaisant, not compliant, not restricted, not submissive, not yielding, still not necessarily absolute in any way that suggests being the source of an absolute standard for morality.
But this gives us a good look into your thought process. You have evidence for exactly one of those, but you're acting like you've proved all of them. No, I can't substitue "not submissive" because you haven't shown one single thing about the subject's submissiveness. Being not provisional certainly shows nothing at all about being not submissive. So mightn't the not provisional subject be submissive, and therefore not absolute? The multitude of opposites works against your point, but you bring it up as if it helps you.
Well, you do seem to be making up what "absolute" means to suit your needs. I'm afraid I don't see what about an absolute being prevents it from making non-absolute pronouncements. Can you be a little clearer about what makes that a problem? Off-hand, I would expect an absolute being to be able to do whatever it dang well wanted.
No, lying is not a failing. Any other ideas?
Comment by don provan — June 5, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
June 5th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
You have got to be kidding me!!! Have you even read the New Testament? The resurrected Jesus walks through walls and flies and appears in a blinding light yet eats and can be touched.
.
I never said it violated the second law of thermodynamics I said that a being that can accomplish a resurrection is not subject to the second law Please pay attention
Sure I do I do it the same way an engineer judges that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. That is unless he is a brain in a vat.
You cant be partially absolute
If ones moral sense is provisional he is not absolute.
If ones moral sense is circumscribed he is not absolute.
If ones moral sense is limited he is not absolute.
If ones moral sense is restricted he is not absolute.
Etc etc etc this is not rocket science.
I never said that an absolute being could not make non absolute pronouncements if he chose to. I said an absoulute being is the absolute standard by definition. please pay attention
It could do what ever it wanted but being absolute what ever it wanted would be the correct thing morally. An absolute being has no higher being or standard or answer to that is what absolute means .
I think your problem is you don't understand the concept of God. You seem to think God is like you only better. This misconception is common and is the root of idolatry.
You might want to check out a good theological study of divine attributes it might make things clearer for you.
Why should anyone care what you think on this subject?
The standard says it is and since he would be the only being that could know absolutely I feel safe in taking his word instead of yours. Can you give me any reason not to?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
June 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
These events you have impartial confirmation of?
Anyway, those things are really cool, but still don't demonstrate being non-coruptable. Sorry. Look it up yourself: nothing about "…and anyone that walks through walls must have a non-coruptable body."
Please think. You're using the resurrection to prove Jesus isn't subject to the second law. If it doesn't prove it, then we'll forget it, leaving you with no argument at all.
Please explain. An engineer judges a perpetual motion machine is impossible precisely because it violates the second law, so using that logic just tells us that the resurrection didn't violate the 2nd law, once again nullifying your argument.
Correct. So if you cannot prove Him being completely abolute, then you've failed. Exactly my point. With all the gimme's I've given you, all you've proved is being not provisional.
Again, think. If he can make non-absolute pronouncements, then He can tell us to follow any moral standard He wants. He isn't limited to telling us one that's absolute.
Why? And what's immoral about telling us to follow a non-absolute morality?
Precisely. Yet you judge His actions based on our morality.
You might want to consider that these questions undermine your idea of theology as a whole.
Comment by don provan — June 6, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
June 6th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Here you go again
Don, it seems we have exhausted this discussion. Your only argument seems to be that that Christ could have been resurrected and still not be God. I addressed this point a while back.
If you accept the resurrection and deny its intended implications you are left with an evil or insane being that wants to convince you that he is God and has the capability to do anything he wants.
In such a world you can’t trust your own thoughts or senses because the evil or insane Jesus could easily manipulate them to serve his ends. You are left with something worse than the brain in the vat scenario.
Unlike you I choose to believe that my thoughts and senses are reliable till I have reason to doubt them.
Since you have abandoned this common sense stance and chosen the route of the hyper skeptic there is really no way for us to continue .
To address the rest of your points would be fruitless until you are willing to accept that you can trust your senses even if it means that you are not the final standard
Have a nice day
What are these questions you keep talking about?????
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 6, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
June 6th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I agree we've exhausted the discussion, but to summarize, my observation — I have no argument, as usual — is that your position is flawed at several levels:
1. Although you have isolated claims of something more amazing, the well confirmed parts of the evidence you have only supports only resuscitation, at best.
2. Even if we grant that Jesus was resurrected, it doesn't follow that, as you claim, "Jesus’ resurrection demonstraits that he is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics".
3. Even if we grant that Jesus is, in fact, not subject to the second law of thermodynamics, that only shows, according to your own logic, that He is not provisional, but, as you yourself have explained, that is not enough to show he is absolute.
4. Even if we grant that Jesus is absolute, that doesn't mean the morality he asks us to follow is absolute.
You haven't actually address a single one of those points, of course.
Although you can't see it, it seems more and more obvious to me that the problem here is that you are arguing from the assumption of Jesus's absolute nature, not towards proving it. This is why you say things like, "You cant be partially absolute," without recognizing that that, alone, torpedoes your position. By exactly the same token, you cannot prove something is absolute; any single unproved non-absolute characteristic would make your subject not absolute.
The only thing unusual about you is that you deny that you're working from the fundamental assumption of Jesus being absolute. Christianity teaches in many different ways that the intelligectual path alone doesn't lead to Jesus, that something more is required. Yet you steadfastly insist that not only have you taken a pure intellectual path, but that I am in denial for not taking it, as well. But, in truth, I am simply following the Christian path better than you are.
Not at all. I could very well have a God with every single one of the characteristics of Jesus that you hold dear. The only difference is that, in His wisdom, He is, for extremely good and noble reasons we simply cannot fathom, instructing us to follow a morality which is not absolute.
Well, no, that's where your premise takes us, not where a worldview based on empirical verification takes us. Yes, it's just a fact, once you've accepted the idea that God exists, you have to accepted as a premise that God is good. You cannot prove God is good under the premise of existence alone for exactly the reasons you yourself are explaining: if He isn't good, He can make you believe whatever He wants, including making you believe He is good. I'm sorry you don't like this conclusion, but it's simply undeniable based on your own argument.
The point is that it is you that abandoned the common sense stance, and this is where it led us. Common sense tells us that if we accept God, we must accept Him in our hearts as undeniably good, we cannot prove it through reasoning.
Comment by don provan — June 6, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
June 6th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I’m not bothered at all by this conclusion why should I be? You on the other hand seem to find it to be less than ideal to the point that you would question your own senses?
Obviously you and I are using deferent definitions of common sense.
It’s always best to stick with the standard usage IMO
What? I never sought to prove God was good. I only illustrated as have Christians for two thousand years that he is the absolute standard of morality.
As such he defines what is good not me.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 6, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
June 6th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
DP
Just to do due diligence I thought I’d again answer your objections
I disagree the new testament reports several resuscitations, I have seen resuscitation myself but the disciples were reporting a very different thing in the case of Jesus.
Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades (the grave) , nor did his flesh see corruption.
Act 13:37 but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.
Actually that is what resurrection means
1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
Actually to be not provisional is to be absolute by definition
Again that is not what I am saying I am saying he is the absolute standard (ie the judge no one is above him) that means that what ever he wants is what we should do by definition
you can not be partially absoulute
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 6, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
June 7th, 2009 at 4:53 am
I don't expect you to be bothered. I'm just explaining why your argument doesn't work. I'm sure you have plenty of reasons to believe God is good, but our conversation was about whether you had evidence that God is an absolute standard. We can now see that you not only don't have evidence, but such evidence would be logically impossible. As I've explain many times, I'm not making an argument, so I don't expect or, for that matter, want anything I say to change your opinion about God or anything else. I'm just hoping you'll be able to see why I objected to your claims.
I agree, and I've shown quite clearly why common sense, in standard usage, shows your argument to be invalid.
I didn't say you sought to prove God was good, I was just reflecting the fact that, according to your argument, if God isn't good, then you must be a brain in a vat, or whatever.
But God being good is implicit in proving God as an absolute source of morality. Unless, of course, you consider the standard for morality that we should follow to be evil.
The key is, according to your definition, the non-corruptable body. They can report whatever they want, but you cannot determine from their reports whether Jesus's new body was non-corruptable. They would have no way to determine that. It really makes no difference how different what they were reporting was from other known resuscitations.
These mean, of course, that his body wasn't corrupted at that moment, not that it was non-corruptable.
I don't think you really understand the 2nd law. Nothing about this statement indicates it has been violated.
How did he know it was imperishable? And is his evidence for it being imperishable supported by the other impartial historically acceptable sources you keep telling us about? You can't send a letter back to Jerusalum to check on whether Jesus's body was imperishable.
Oh, for heaven's sake, we've been over this. You are the one that explained to me that being not provisional was just one aspect of being absolute. Why do you deny your own points?
Great! So you admit the standard of morality you want to follow is not absolute, it's just that we should follow it because Jesus wants us to. That's a great step forward, and just when I thought we were done.
Now: what if the morality Jesus instructed you to follow had some less than desirable qualities, like killing all non-believers. Would you follow that morality because Jesus told you to, or would you question whether that's really a good morality to follow in spite of its source?
Comment by don provan — June 7, 2009 @ 4:53 am
June 7th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Hey Dp
I think that it is clear to everyone that you have a predetermined idea about what I believe and are not even paying attention,
No no a thousand time no God being good follows necessarily from the proposition that he is absolute standard. I don’t have to prove he is good if I Prove he is the judge what the judge says is good is good
Here is the problem you have set yourself up to be the judge you have reserved the right to determine what it right and what is wrong this is the original sin of Adam
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 7, 2009 @ 11:26 am
June 7th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
So Absolute Evil is inconceivable?
Comment by Zachriel — June 7, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
June 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Evil is not a thing in and of itself but the negation of the good.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 7, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
June 8th, 2009 at 4:56 am
This is simply one of the fundamental assumptions from your indoctrination. You're the one the explained to me the hypothetical case where the absolute judge was evil. Remember? You told me that if that were the case, I wouldn't be able to trust anything? So you are simply assuming God is good to avoid that case, not because it's logically follows from His absolute nature.
Another major assumption you've been taught to make without realizing it is that an absolute standard is both possible and necessary. That's what gets you to this whole thing about brains in vats: if your absolute standard for understanding reality goes away, you think all understanding of reality goes away.
Well, that's almost it. My real point is that we humans must judge, no matter what your religion told you to think about there being an absolute judge. After all, I bet you judge Islam's morality all the time, but the case supporting Islam is logically identical to yours. If we refuse to judge for ourselves, we accept fundamentally stupid ideas such as the idea that people converting away from Islam should be put to death, or the idea that people who enjoy sex in a different way from us are second class citizens.
Comment by don provan — June 8, 2009 @ 4:56 am
June 8th, 2009 at 7:39 am
That was to illustrate the absurdity of the suggestion I had no Idea you’d embrace it. My point went like this
If the judge is evil all knowledge is impossible including the knowledge that the judge is evil. To judge the judge is to give up on all knowledge including science.
You seem to have no problem with this idea in fact you think it's evedence for your point.
That was Adam what decided as well. I think he was mistaken. I agree that humans have the freedom to accept or reject God but freedom to disobey is not the same as freedom to judge.
logicaly identical is not identical. The big bang is logicaly identical
to the steady state universe that does not make them the same theory.
the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is far greater than the evidence that Mohamed is God’s final prophet.
.
who are you to say they are stupid?
If we did judge for ourselves nothing is to stop us from deciding just those things or other things like religious upbringing is child abuse or that Christianity is a threat to society and must be eradicated.
Just ask those other demigods Dawkins and Kim Jung Ill
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2009 @ 7:39 am
June 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
So think it's reasonable to kill people that convert away from your religion?
Muslims, of course, say exactly the opposite. You don't understand that or its importance.
If we don't judge for ourselves openly, we are simply leaving it to someone else to judge in secret.
Comment by don provan — June 8, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
June 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Notice that Adam was punished for simply questioning God being the absolute standard, not for doing anything immoral. The importance of the story is that it helps us see why you are unable to question these assumptions.
Comment by don provan — June 8, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
June 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
DP
No but that’s because the standard says so not because I have some comer on rational thought over the Muslim
And you would say that neither of us has any compelling evidence your point is? That people belive all sorts of things about God is a reflection on us humans not God.
Just because some deny the truth that does not mean that the truth does not exist. Some people deny the moon landing and some people claim to have been abducted by aliens.
What people say or believe makes precious little difference when all is said and done
What is important is what actually happened. What is important is the truth.
When it comes down to it we don’t judge at all, That is what God does. We only obey or disobey.
Who gave you the authority to say questioning God is not immoral?
Making yourself to be god and deciding for yourself what is right and wrong is the ultimate immoral act. It is the very heart of what sin is.
For me it is important because it illustrates that there is nothing new under the sun. Folks still today are suckers for that little voice in the ear that says
Gen 3:5 "you will be like God"
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
June 8th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
The Muslim standard says different. How do we deal with that?
So we cannot know the absolute standard, right? All we can know is what you and other humans believe. Can you see the difference between an absolute standard and what humans (such as yourself) say is the absolute standard? Which do we know? Which can we make laws based on?
I'm not denying the truth exists. I'm just asking why we should believe that what you say reflects the truth. As you just pointed out, you aren't God, so what you say reflects you as a human, not God.
Exactly. Specifically, what you (or I) say or believe makes precious little difference when all is said and done.
This is really scarey. So if God says "kill", you will kill.
I didn't say it. Our society says it. I will not be arrested for questioning God. Are you suggesting we should change that part of our society?
I'm not deciding for myself. We are deciding as a society.
It's the big, loud voice that says, "Don't you dare question these teachings," that concerns me more.
Comment by don provan — June 8, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
June 8th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Same way we do with any disagreement. Present the evidence do our best to convince and trust that the standard will reveal himself to those he chooses to
You are kidding right? I’ve spent a lot of time demonstrating how we can know the absolute standard based solely on evidence have you not paid any attention?
Just one post ago I said
What people say or believe makes precious little difference when all is said and done
You are joking right? Let me try again
I have demonstrated that we can know the standard. However many choose to deny this and set themselves up as god.
Depends on how many rebels are amongst us.
The resurrection of Jesus.
Remember?
I never claimed to be the standard
If your standard says to kill you will kill won’t you? If not why not
My standard won’t say that
2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.
Mat 5:39 But I say to you, resist not the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world . If my kingdom were of this worlds, my servants would have been fighting,
Society is just a collection of individuals
if the voice is big and loud it's not the standard
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
June 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
What I paid attention to is this:
How do we detemine whom He chose? How can you claim to be the chosen one when the Muslim standing next to you is claiming that he is the chosen one yet presentst a different "absolute standard"?
Comment by don provan — June 9, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
June 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
First off you inability to see the truth does not mean the truth does not mean the truth does not exist. Next just because we have two claims to the truth does not mean those claims are equal.
Off the top of my head I can answer you question in two ways
1) which claim has more objective evidence supporting it? The answer is obviously the resurrection. Islam offers no proof at all that it is the standard other than the Quran itself.
2) the Quran (surah 29) says that
"We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you;
So therefore their standard endorses mine especially this verse
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
nuff said
peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 9, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
June 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
You claimed to be able to present the absolute standard for us to answer all moral questions. Now that you've remembered you're human, are you withdrawing that claim?
Because my standard is not absolute. I can question it a decide it's bogus. You cannot: if your absolute standards says "kill", it's absolute: you must kill.
So are religions.
Comment by don provan — June 9, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
June 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
The standard is Jesus not FMM I’ve presented him and proof of his authority. Whether I’m a human or a robot makes no difference concerning the standard. That’s what having an absolute standard means
What standard do you use to make this determination? Magic 8 ball?
Please don't ignore this question? It is very important for our discussion
Mine doesn’t and won't say to kill.
You can’t say the same. People using your standard (their own reasoning) have often decided to kill. What keeps you from "deciding" to do the same?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 9, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
June 9th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I agree that’s why I'm glad that I don’t belong to one
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 9, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
You act as if the only moral philosophers on Earth are Christian theologians. While applied informally, and driven historically by insightful thinkers, the standard we use is derived from certain fundamental assumptions such as the golden rule and equal treatement. Generally it's judged and adjusted based on the results.
The key to the standard our socienty uses is that the assumptions and logic are open to inspection. Religions define themselves by the assumptions they refuse to question.
Comment by don provan — June 10, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
By what criteria do judge your standard?
By what criteria? Magic 8 ball?
What standard do you use when questioning your assumptions?
Please continue to not ignore these questions. I think we are to the nub of our discussion
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 10, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
The same one I use to judge your standard. There are many aspects, of course, but it basically boils down to fairness.
Whatever criteria anyone would like to suggest.
As I said, we judge it by its results.
Comment by don provan — June 10, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Is fairness an absolute standard or do you ever question it?
Suppose I suggest my own personal pleasure would that be considered a valid criteria by you. If not why not?
“Results” is not a criteria.
What standard do you use to decide that one result is better than another?
That is not how I think at all. I only want to know by what standard you judge and what makes yours better than mine.
I think I’ve demonstrated that I believe my standard must be evaluated just not morally.
That is because you can't judge a moral standard morally with out having separate higher moral standard.
If it was to be demonstrated that my standard does not have the authority to judge then it would be abandoned.
I would drop it like the Idol it was.
Could you lay out your procedure for me. Especially how you evaluate your decision to be fair.
In order to evaluate you must have a standard. What is your standard to evaluate fairness for example
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 10, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Of course fairness isn't an absolute standard. Of course we question it. But we're very satisfied with it and have come to depend on it more and more over the years.
Your personal pleasure is a fine criteria, but fairness tends to outweigh it in many cases.
You didn't ask for a criteria, you asked, "What standard do you use when questioning your assumptions?" The standard is whether the results are acceptable.
What's yours? I thought your standard wasn't open to judgement by us.
Anyway, I don't think my standard is better than yours, I think our standard is better than none. I do not dictate the standards I am describing. They have been formulated over the centuries by our society.
OK, I guess I missed that. I thought when I said something that you thought was evaluating your standard, you accused me of thinking I was God. So how do you evaluate your absolute standard?
Are you really evaluating the standard? Or just the source?
Read up on how legal proceedings are run. That's a good example.
I evaluate fairness by imagining myself in other people's shoes and consider whether I'd like the results. How do you evaluate fairness?
Comment by don provan — June 10, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
What criteria do you use to question it
By what criteria does fairness outweigh my personal pleasure
A criteria is a standard
What criteria “standard” makes one set of results more acceptable than another?
Jesus I thought we established that
I never said that You are welcome to judge it if you have a higher standard. I would hope that you tell me what it is.
It’s not open to me that is unless I have a higher moral standard by which to judge it with. I have none.
You still haven’t said what that standard is in the case of evaluating “fairness” for example
You haven’t even listed them.
Are you saying that what ever a society formulates is the absolute standard?
Are the standards formulated by your society better than those formulated my mine? On what bases do you (us?) make this determination
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 10, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I look at the evidence of Jesus’ divinity (the resurection) I thought we covered that.
The source and the standard are the same thing
In America the absolute legal standard is the constitution. Are you saying that your criteria is constitutionality?
That is not evaluating "fairness" that’s evaluating a result to see if it is fair. it presuposes that fairness is a good thing.
How did you decide fairness was a good thing?
I see if the standard values fairness if he does fairness is a good thing
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 10, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Oh, for heaven's sake. No, I'm saying there is no absolute stanard, but we've managed to come up with a pretty good standard, nevertheless. And I claim we accept Christianity because it matches that standard, not the other way around.
As far as I know, we have the same society.
Comment by don provan — June 10, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
So people accept this because it matches the standard?
Comment by chunkdz — June 10, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
June 10th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
What is the standard? On the basis of what criteria is fairness a good thing? On what basis have you decided you have a pretty good standard?
.
I would like to evaluate that claim. What is your standard? On what basis did you decide that the worship of Jesus as Lord was a good thing?
I’m not so sure
I think I live in the same country if that’s what you mean but so does the anti-Semite that killed the security guard today and the Muslim who killed the army recruiter a few weeks ago and the atheists who committed the Columbine massacre and the nut job antiabortionist who killed the doctor in church.
It’s a big country and it is full of very different conflicting standards. By what criteria do “we” as a society decide which standard is "our" standard?
You said that society “formulated” the standard I reject that assertion and your standard. In fact I reject much of what modern western society values morally.
It’s a good thing that my standard directs me to obey my rulers and as far as depends on me to live at peace with everyone.
Too bad others in "our society" don’t have a similar direction.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 10, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Not everyone accepts Christianity. The point is that Christianity would not have have become a dominant religion unless its moral standard was agreeable to its followers. Christianity became a major influence in our society because its moral standard is a good one; our society did not turn to Christianity and then discover that murder was bad, for example.
Comment by don provan — June 11, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Officially, we decide through the courts. Informally, you and I and essentially all people in the country condemn the people you mention. (I'm not going to think about it too hard, but I think that even the people you mention would condemn each other.)
The unavoidable example of nut jobs and other outlying individuals doesn't undermine the claim of a standard. If it did, that last case would put the Christian morality in a bind, too, since there's no question the abortion was killed by someone that thought they were operating under the Christian standard.
Comment by don provan — June 11, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
This society did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
How is this…
"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."
…a "good" standard?
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I never said it did. I’m the one advocating an absolute standard remember.
I only inquired (repeatedly) as to what it was for you (and society). I’ve given what I believe to be the standard. What do you think it is?
IOW
What criteria do you (or our society) use to determine that fairness is a good thing?
Please don’t ignore this
Did you know that that is one argument that Paul used to demonstrate that there was an absoulute standard that everyone is subject to even nonchristians?
check it out
Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
You see we do have a lot in common we all of us judge acourding to standards.
The question is on what standard do you (or they) judge.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 11, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
No. Why do you ask?
Comment by don provan — June 12, 2009 @ 1:57 pm