Critics in the Post Wedge World
by MikeGeneOkay, since most critics can only hear "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written, things have becomes more complicated in the Post Wedge World. For now it appears that we have at least four types of ID critics.
Type A: This group of critics does not think science can address questions about the existence of God and thinks it is erroneous to do so. This group opposes people trying to use science as a Trojan Horse for either theism or atheism. Their opposition to the ID movement is largely rooted in a genuine concern to keep science as free of metaphysics and politics as possible. Someone like Eugenie Scott belongs to this group.
Type B: This group of critics wants to use science to evangelize for atheism, but they want to seduce, rather than coerce, people into their beliefs. They are part of a growing movement that may very well blur the boundaries between religion and science, as they speak of science using the language and emotions of religion. Their opposition to the ID movement is largely rooted in a perceived Culture War, where ID is viewed as a competing metaphysic. Someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson belongs to this group.
Type C: This group of critics wants to use science to evangelize for atheism, but they want to coerce, rather than seduce, people into their beliefs. They are part of a growing movement that doesn't as much advocate science-as-religion as they do scientism, often posturing as hard-headed, objective scientists who care only about the evidence. Their opposition to the ID movement is largely rooted in a perceived Culture War, where ID is viewed as a competing and evil metaphysic. Someone like Richard Dawkins belongs to this group.
Type D: This group of critics represent the religious people who oppose ID for theological reasons. In other words, since they equate ID with religion, ID is thus viewed as a competing theological/religious claim about the world. Someone like Keith Miller belongs to this group.
Type B and C critics are Evangelical Atheists who are peddling a worldview. Type C critics are the true hardcore cases, as they accuse Type A critics of being the Appeasers. Type B critics complain about type C critics, worrying that their hardcore approach is too offensive, and thus ultimately ineffective when it comes to converting the world. Type A critics are also worried about type C critics, but for different reasons. They think the Type C critics will ultimately strengthen the hand of those who want to use science to evangelize for religion. Type A critics seek alliance with type D critics for political reasons, while type C critics lump the type D critics with Creationists.
In the end, Type C critics stand out and are essentially secular mirror-images of hardcore religious fundamentalists. Type B critics are essentially secular mirror-images of moderate/New Age-type religionists. Also, it may be hard to tell a Type A critic apart from a Type B critic, as they are both going to be "sensitive" to religion. The type A critic is sensitive because they seek political alliance with the type D critic. The type B critic is sensitive for evangelical reasons, as the seek to entice religionists with naturalism/atheism.
There are several things that unite all these factions. Already mentioned is their inability to contemplate the issues related to ID without relying on the "ID=religion/God" stereotype. Furthermore, I would argue that all groups entail a very strong tendency toward closed-mindedness: Types B, C, D for metaphysical reasons and Type A for political reasons. Also, all groups are united in their strong tendency to label ID proponents as "Creationists" and "threats to Science."
Perhaps we should return the labeling favor. Feel free to use the comments section to replace Type A, B, C, and D with the appropriate labels. Perhaps a consensus can be reached to expand our lexicon.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
In what sense does Dawkins want to "coerce" people into his belief?
Comment by Andrea — December 15, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
In the sense that he, and his followers, are bullies. They seek to create a culture/environment that will stigmatize religious people as evil and stupid. The idea is to make people ashamed to admit they are religious. For example, why does he liken religious parents to child abusers?
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I actually have a lot of respect for the Type A critic. If you read my posts here and at UD, you will see that I often suggest that ID belongs in philosophy of science, but does not truly belong as a scientific theory. I would rather see science honestly say, "we don't know". Science should not pretend that it has a clue about how the big bang came to be (they're pretty good on that one), how life started (they begrudgingly announce YET on that one), no the cambrian explosion, etc. If science were to clearly say "we don't know", the religious philosopher would find adequate room to see his view of god in the picture. I personally think that biology has become way to cocky. And as the Bible says, "pride cometh before the fall". I, for one, am wearing my hardhat.
Comment by bFast — December 15, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Hi bFast,
You write, "I actually have a lot of respect for the Type A critic."
Compared to type B and C, yes. But keep in mind that the critic still relies on emotions, stereotypes and clichés when processing questions about ID. In their eyes, you are still either stupid, dishonest, or deluded.
I should mention that there is a type E critic "“ someone who is skeptical of ID, yet tries to remain open and fair-minded about ID. However, I think, based on my experience, that this group is very small.
BTW, now that I think about it, and to make things even more interesting/fun, certain emotional expressions tend to stand out with the four critic types.
Type A typically exhibits feelings of threatiness/fear. This makes sense, given that Type A critics interact with this issue mainly for political reasons.
Type B critics admit to be awe-struck by Nature, but this often comes with a certain sense of arrogance that in turn comes from thinking you have a privileged insight into reality.
Type C critics clearly exhibit rage and a hateful form of arrogance, but since these emotions are related to fear, threatiness is also often seen.
Type D critics tend to exhibit embarrassment. Since these critics hear "God" when "ID" is spoken, ID is viewed like the Crazy Aunt you want to keep hidden from your friends. Thus, Type D critics can often overcompensate for this sense of embarrassment and come across as Type A and C critics with threatiness and mean-spiritedness.
Of course all humans experience the full range of emotions, but I think that is a fairly decent categorization there.
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
I've had encounters with A through E. Only E is not driven by subjective emotions and E is a rare bird.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I've found that there are also shades of grey between the types, even mixes of type C and E. So it can get pretty complex.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I modestly submit that you have omitted the "insider" critic. Someone sympathetic to the idea that science as seen through an ID lens can strengthen (but not prove) one's view of a creator God while at the same time ID, stand-alone, falls short of being science. I don't think that is the same as type E, but perhaps I misunderstood.
Comment by David Heddle — December 15, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
I modestly submit that you have omitted the "insider" critic. Someone sympathetic to the idea that science as seen through an ID lens can strengthen (but not prove) one's view of a creator God while at the same time ID, stand-alone, falls short of being science.
If at some point in the future there are dozens of research papers authored by those having tested ID hypotheses, is it your position that the content of the papers would be irrelevant to you, based on your ID is not science position, or could test results impact your views?
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Hi David,
The categories are admittedly rough, but they pay tribute to the fact that Dawkins is not like Scott, Myers is not like Miller, etc. As for "insider critics," some of us here would probably qualify, as we have long thought that ID falls short of science. However, we would probably differ because you think we should equate ID with God/religion.
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Bradford,
My positions on everything are snapshots in time. If ID papers start appearing, papers that put ID to the test, I'll happily sing a different tune.
Comment by David Heddle — December 15, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
That's not any more coercive than other campaigns aimed at changing society's attitudes. Heck, anti-smoking campaigns are far more "coercive" than that, since they involve actual penalties for smoking in certain situations.
It basically just boils down to you disagreeing with their goals, and reacting with your "emotions, stereotypes and clichés". Try replacing "religion" with, say, "racism":
"In the sense that he, and his followers, are bullies. They seek to create a culture/environment that will stigmatize racist people as evil and stupid. The idea is to make people ashamed to admit they are racist."
Would you characterize such a movement as "coercive" In fact, try replacing "religion" with "atheism", and you'd be close to the status quo in much of America, and would arguably include many on this site as the coercive "bullies".
Dawkins & C can be, to anyone's tastes, aggressive, grating, strident, arrogant, etc, but "coercive" they ain't.
Comment by Andrea — December 15, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Andrea:
Spreading the "meme" that religious parents are child abusers is coercion. Plain and simple.
Next.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Exactly. Did you notice that Andrea deleted my question?
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Hi Andrea,
You write:
It's a matter of opinion. But I think it is clear that the approach of the type C critic is more coercive that the type B critic.
Indeed. But one can only wonder what penalties might be involved if people like Dawkins, Harris, and PZ Myers were as numerous as non-smokers. We already know, for example, they think religion is dangerous and evil and Dawkins likens religious parents to child abusers. What if those views were the views of the majority?
Your opinion is noted. Sure, I disagree with their goals of eliminating religious faith. I'm just pointing out that not all ID critics have those goals "“ that goal seems specific to type C critics.
Why? Are they equivalent?
Who on this site expends tremendous time and energy characterizing atheists as stupid and evil?
You left out bigoted. Anyway, that's a matter of opinion. I think that compared to type B critics, the type C critics are clearly more coercive as their agenda is to create a society that will view religious people as evil and stupid. As I asked you, why do you think Dawkins has set out to liken religious parents to child abusers?
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 9:29 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
The motivations for Type D are difficult to put a finger on, but I do not think this is the principle reason. In fact there are many reasons for the Type D critic:
1. I think they really believe they are right.
When I asked Francis Collins about ID when he visited GMU, he said, "If ID were true, I would embrace it." Collins in fact had a copy of Privileged Planet and he used ID-friendly arguments. His argument for the moral law within humans is a "God-of-the-gaps" argument, so he really doens't have a logical problem using it.
When a creationist pressed collins for his "un-biblical" views. Collins astutely said, "how can you explain Chromosome II". Collins was very sincere, and I have to say Collins got the better of that exchange, imho.
Caroline Crocker was a TE for almost 22 years after becoming a Christian at age 18 and being taught by another TE Derek Burke. It took that long for he mind to be changed. Burke actually wrote a book which featured a debate between ICR staff and TE's, so she was likely aware of ICR's arguments.
Many ID critical TE's who found fault in creationists arguments and are not yet acquainted with the more rigorous ones presented today by IDists. When Crocker was familiarized with Behe and Dembski, she found that far more convincing than ICR's arguments.
The point is, some of the TE would be persuaded, but have not been reached yet. The bad creationists arguments of past and present are still leaving a bad taste in their mouths, and I don't blame them. I'm a creationists, and I think some the arguments out there are horrible!
2. There are some TE's too proud to admit publicly that they could have been wrong all these years, especially after advocating one side.
3. I also hate to say it, but I think the YEC nastiness has made many TE's rather hope Darwin was right simply because they don't want the YECs who have been calling them names and denigrating them publicly to be the guys in that win the argument.
I don't think the issue for the TE's is fundamentally metaphysical or religious in other words. In sum, it is a combination of:
1. thinking not-telic evolutionary theory is correct
2. pride at admitting some arguments creationists call upon, namely, like the design argument might be right
3. the general disdain toward creationists because of YEC nastiness which sadly has been well-deserved because of YEC behavior. There is bad blood sown in the feuds, at some point it just about not wanting the guys you despise to be proven right
4. not wanting to be associated with creationists, heck, their times I'm embarrassed to be associated with supposedly my own — can we say Kent Hovind or Ted Haggard, or for that matter Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker!!!!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 15, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
"One" can "wonder" as much as "one" wants. The point is, apart from your prejudice you have no evidence that Dawkins, Harris etc would coerce anyone to do anything.
To my knowledge, he did not liken all religious parents to child abusers. He likened certain forms of religious indoctrination to child abuse, and he likened the labeling of children with any religious label they may not understand or subscribe to (including "atheist", by the way) as child abuse.
I find the latter pretty much a nitpick, but as far as the first one goes, things are not so black-and-white as you make them, and Dawkins is not the Big Bad Wolf you depict him to be. For instance, I would gather that all sane people, including probably you, would agree that at least some forms of child indoctrination, e.g. those related to cults (e.g. Branch Davidians) and extreme political opinions (e.g. Hitler Jugend) are child abuse. Most reasonable folks would also argue that far more mainstream forms of religious education, such as "Jesus Camp"-style indoctrination, as well as many fundamentalist religious practices (Christian, Islamic, etc) imposed on children are also child abuse, or border to it. Dawkins opined that
"the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is."
You may disagree with him, but that's not utterly crazy. There certainly is evidence that some people have been psychologically damaged by a hyper-strict religious upbringing
The point is really not whether child indoctrination (religious and otherwise) can be child abuse - it obviously can, and respect for beliefs and wishes of the parents cannot be unconditional (if not legally, at least morally). The point is where you draw the line between the natural desire of people to transmit their values and beliefs to their kids, and where indoctrination starts. I would say that if you expect your children to strictly follow your religious belief system, whatever that is, and are willing to inflict punishment on them (physically or psychologically) if they don't, you are abusing them. On the other hand, if you educate your children in your religious beliefs in an open and pluralistic fashion, and let them freely develop their own, I don't see anything wrong with that education. My own kids go to Sunday school, even if I disagree with much of what they are told there, and make sure they know that as they grow up they have to understand, but not necessarily believe any of it, if they so wish.
Eh - I considered adding a disclaimer, but then I thought no one would be so dim-witted to equivocate. Goes to show.
Comment by Andrea — December 15, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Methinks some people ought to look up "coercion" in a dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.co...
Under standard definition, Dawkins is clearly a "Type B" critic.
Comment by Myrmecos — December 15, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Mike,
Incidentally, I'm am encouraging ID strategists that the key demographic group which must be won over must be those who are influenced by type D critics. Given than 50% of the nation are creationists, about 30-35% are TE's, this demographic group of critics is the one that I think must be sought after.
I think PZ Myers is right to be concerned that the TE's may jump ship and join the IDists. I don't believe it is not theological issues as much as lingering blood feuds about who is the "bad guy" as well as the embarassment that creationists have been to themselves which has prejudiced the TE's. Further, the TEs need to feel welcome somehwere where their view of common ancestry is not met with hostility. The ID community can offer that to them if the TE's can be realeased from their misconceptions and allow the ID community to reach them.
What the Type C critic fears is that eventually the the followers of the Type D critics will find more in common with someone like Michael Behe and Charles Townes(technically pro-ID TE's) than PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins or Peter Singer. When that happens, the Type C critic will be facing a demographic where 85% of the poplulation are rejecting his views outright, and possibly a good number of Chrisitans with advanced degrees now sympathetic to ID.
I am cautiously optimistic those who identify themselves with Type D can be persuaded (except for the leadership Type-D's like Ken Miller). Miller is in it too deep to admit he's wrong. He won't acknowledge or retract his misrepresentations of Behe. He would prefer to save face than to consider what he has really done….
I don't think the Type D leadership (like Ken Miller or George Murphy) can be persuaded, but their supporters can. Examples of TE's being persuaded are Caroline Crocker, John Sanford, Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, and so many others who are now part of ID.
The battle ground to win hearts to at least consider the case for ID on objective terms will be to gain an audience with the TE's. That's where there will be a lot of action in the Post Wedge World.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 15, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Hello Andrea,
You write:
Agreed. But you seem to be missing the point. In trying to draw distinctions between the evangelical atheists, I play them off each other by noting that while type B wants to seduce, rather than coerce, type C wants to coerce rather than seduce. I think that is a decent distinction, as I think many also recognize type C critics come off as bullies. Let's use the definition supplied by Myrmecos "“ "use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance." Apparently, you think I am talking about force, but I am talking about intimidation (in fact, if it makes you feel better, simply replace "˜intimidation' for "˜coerce'). You might not like the description, but too bad; I am fairly confident that it resonates not only with ID people, but also with many type A, B, D, and E critics. All anyone has to do is read the writings of people like Dawkins, Harris, and Myers and it's pretty obvious from the extreme language, agenda, and arguments of these people that they have chosen the steel-booted road of intimidation (which may be part of the reason other critics are distancing themselves from this crowd).
As for your defense of Dawkins and his ignorant notions about religion and child abuse, I'll deal with that directly when this thread runs it course. Right now I am content to point out that the reason Dawkins makes this argument (and has begun to incorporate it into his movement) is exactly as Guts noted "“ "Spreading the "meme" that religious parents are child abusers is coercion. Plain and simple." Again, I am confident that most people can see this just as clearly. In fact, I suspect that mostly type C critics will have a hard time acknowledging the coercive nature of the meme.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 12:28 am
December 16th, 2006 at 1:43 am
That seems to be the anti-ID activist's modus operandi.
Comment by Guts — December 16, 2006 @ 1:43 am
December 16th, 2006 at 2:36 am
Would Mike Gene be willing to say what percentages of ID critics he thinks fall into each of his four/five categories?
Of course there is room for overap, for example, I used to be a type E critic "“ "someone who is skeptical of ID, yet tries to remain open and fair-minded about ID." But then I shifted out of this category after two or three years of reading about 'the design revolution' without seeing accompanying results alongside ID-promotionalism. Being a person who thinks teleologically by profession, I found the 'revolutionary' logic actually quite non-revolutionary.
Thus, I wonder which category Mike would 'place' me into.
Comment by g arago — December 16, 2006 @ 2:36 am
December 16th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Actually, it seems to me that right now it is you who is the one spreading the (false) meme that Dawkins claimed that religious parents, as such, are child abusers. Do you actually have a quote of his saying that?
If not, at this point you should just retract the accusation. Instead, I suggest you address Dawkins's actual arguments about religious indoctrination (which you can read in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion), instead of reflexively attributing to him all the Big Bad Things Big Bad Evil Atheists are supposed to be advocating in your mind, and posturing against a strawman.
Actually, I ignored the question the first time because I assumed it was a slip of the tongue by Mike, and did not want to dwell on the fact that the accusation was false. As soon as I realized he was serious, I answered. He ignored my answer, so I guess he wasn't even actually looking for one.
"Why do you beat your wife?"
"I have never beaten my wife in my life. I love and respect my wife and would never hurt her."
"I'll address your arguments about love for your wife another time. For now: why do you beat her?"
Comment by Andrea — December 16, 2006 @ 9:27 am
December 16th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Is the doctrine of hell documentation of child abuse?
http://www.skepticatheist.com/...
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2006 @ 10:04 am
December 16th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Okay Andrea, since you want to delve more deeply into this, let's start with one of your claims:
Define "reasonable folks" and then provide your evidence.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 10:33 am
December 16th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Andrea:
The quote is ""Spreading the "meme" that religious parents are child abusers is coercion" and not ""Spreading the "meme" that all religious parents are child abusers is coercion." Catholic parents are religious parents. And Dawkins wants to label them child abusers.
But perhaps it would help if I added more details to the observation. According to your Dawkins' quote, it is teaching the doctrine of Hell that is child abuse (you expand on this to include such vague activity as "Jesus Camp"-style indoctrination, as well as many fundamentalist religious practices"; since you yourself send your own kids to Sunday school, you'll be content with describing "certain" religious parents as child abusers as long as it excludes someone as enlightened as yourself). So let's build on this.
1. The Christian doctrine of Hell is most strongly emphasized in the teachings of Jesus. Thus, according to Dawkins, parents who teach their children the teachings of Jesus are child abusers.
2. Or, we could stick with Dawkins original anti-Catholic point, and simply note that Dawkins teaches that Catholics are child abusers (and Andrea wants to expand the net).
3. But why be so vague about it? Child abuse is a serious thing and society does not seek to hide the identity of child abusers. Since Michael Behe and Ken Miller are traditional Catholics, isn't Dawkins accusing Behe and Miller of being child abusers? It's entailed in his logic.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 11:38 am
December 16th, 2006 at 11:57 am
LOL, way to change the subject, buddy.
Well, the "Jesus Camp" documentary elicited such strong and widespread condemnation of the brain-washing tactics employed there, they actually closed the thing. I think that should suffice.
As far as the fundamentalist religious practices, ranging from ritual corporal punishments to genital mutilation, from the wearing of burkas to the arranged marriage of young adolescent girls among traditionalist Mormons, I sure would hope most reasonable people would regard them as abuse. Or maybe you don't?
So, the question of where it is fair to draw the line between simple religious education, religious indoctrination, and bona fide child abuse is far from trivial, and the notion that parents are morally entitled to impose all and any religious belief system and practice on their children is just unacceptably simplistic. While legislating limits may be often difficult or even in some cases impossible, as Dawkins himself admits, morally I think there is little question that some forms of religious indoctrination/upbringing are child abuse, and that rational and sane people are bound to speak against them, even if that means making people "ashamed" of subscribing to certain practices. Heck, genital mutilators should be ashamed, and I for one don't give a hoot what their religion says.
Now, your turn: where does Dawkins claim that "religious parents are child abusers" That link by Bradford obviously doesn't cut it.
So, the correct way to state that would be that Dawkins says that some (maybe even "many") religious parents are child abusers, not "religious parents" in toto.
But regardless, Mike, I myself was brought up a Catholic, and as everyone can tell you, the kind of teaching of the "doctrine of Hell" that Dawkins explicitly rails against is not mainstream in modern Catholicism. Children are not usually terrified at Catechism with graphic Dantean visions of damnation and eternal torment, and admonitions of Hell are not normally used to brow-beat children into obedience. However, parents and educators who do, and there are some, are very arguably guilty of child abuse, especially on very emotionally impressionable children.
It's entailed in your logic of steadfastly refusing to understand what Dawkins actually says, and of reasoning with your enteric nervous system instead.
Comment by Andrea — December 16, 2006 @ 11:57 am
December 16th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Huh? A pro-science advocate such as yourself makes a claim about empirical reality and refuses to support it with a scientific approach. Try again, Andrea. First, define "most reasonable folks." Then, provide the numbers that indicate 50+% of these folks argue that far more mainstream forms of religious education is child abuse. Or are you abandoning science to make you attack on other parents?
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I don't view Dawkins as a Big Bad Evil Atheist. I view him as a small-minded, self-loving, anti-religious bigot. Since it seems that Dawkins is one of your heroes, I suspect my criticisms of Dawkins make you mad at me.
Anyway, I have not read Dawkins' book yet. So let's go with the quote you provided us:
"the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is."
Why doesn't Dawkins define "mental abuse?"
Does he do this in chapter 9?
If so, does interact with the large body of scientific literature about child abuse?
Does he acknowledge its existence?
Second, note the weasel word "“ "could easily be more damaging." Dawkins is hiding in the fantasy world of things that "could happen." We can just as easily say that the physical actuality of sexual abuse could easily be more damaging than the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain.
Apparently, the scientist is oblivious to the fact he is making a testable claim about empirical reality. If teaching the doctrine of Hell is "more damaging" than physically abusing a child, Dawkins should have good scientific evidence for this claim. Does he not know about the extensive scientific literature that explores the damaging effects of physical abuse? Does he consult it? And where is his scientific evidence about the damaging effects of the Hell doctrine?
Here, let me teach Dawkins how do to some science. He'll first want to flesh out the ways we can scientifically detect whether damage has occurred. For starters, has the scientist seen this review?
Okay, if Dawkins's hypothesis is correct, we would predict, controlling for all other variables, that people who were brought up in a household where the Hell doctrine was taught were more likely to "to be depressed, to experience other types of psychiatric illness, to have more physical symptoms (both medically explained and unexplained), and to engage in more health-risk behaviors" than those raised in a household where the teaching was not taught. So why is it that scientist Richard Dawkins does not provide the evidence and the studies? And anecdotes from his fans, along with sensational news stories, don't count as scientific evidence.
But it gets more interesting. Not only does the Ambassador of Science abandon science to make his accusations about
religiousCatholic parents (evidence of his bigotry), he ignores the contrary evidence.Consider this scientific study for starters:
Hmmm. Mothers classified as high in religious involvement exhibiting less child abuse potential also becomes mothers classified as low in religious involvement exhibiting more child abuse potential. It doesn't quite match Dawkins' blusterous rhetoric, now does it?
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Andrea:
I have not seen this documentary, so I cannot comment.
It's always easy to point at icky parts of different cultures and be judgmental. The question is whether you have evidence that such things are child abuse. Science has long explored the effects of child abuse. Your burden is to scientifically demonstrate that such actions are associated with the independently documented effects of child abuse. You and Dawkins want to point your index finger at others and shout, "Child abuser!" but refuse to lift a pinky to support your accusations with scientific evidence.
Let me guess. When you and Dawkins draw your lines, you and Dawkins will be conveniently left on the non-abuse side of the line. Again, if you want to label people with nasty accusations, provide the objective, scientific evidence. When pro-science advocates abandon science in order to demonize other human beings, the pro-science advocates are being hypocritical.
But I'm not sure if this is correct. Since Dawkins is trying to start an anti-religious movement that views all religion as the root of much evil, and there is no evidence that he makes distinctions between types of religious indoctrination, I can't in good conscience state it as you do. Thus, I meet you half way by refraining from using "all religious parents."
What Dawkins and his movement need to do is clearly draw their lines for all to see. Provide us a list of the child abusers. For example, does Dawkins think Behe, Miller, and Collins abused their children? Does Dawkins think that Jesus is responsible for much child abuse?
Andrea:
Whoa. Where does Dawkins make this distinction? Dawkins says, "An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is." I see no distinction.
I see. So it's not the religion or religious belief, but the parenting style that is in question. Well, duh. So why is Dawkins blaming a religion and a doctrine?
You are projecting, Andrea. I'm asking a pro-science advocate and an Ambassador of Science to deal with this topic like scientists. Where are your definitions? Where are your testable hypotheses? Where are your experiments? Where are your data? Where are your peer-reviewed publications? What about the science that contradicts Dawkins? Apparently, when it comes being judgmental against people who are different than you and Dawkins, you run away from the scientific approach as fast as you can. When I make this clear, it upsets you. So now you are mad at me.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Well, the "Jesus Camp" documentary elicited such strong and widespread condemnation of the brain-washing tactics employed there, they actually closed the thing. I think that should suffice.
Let's look at the content of the link.
Speaking in tongues heh? Can't have that kind of abuse now can we? If the pro-abortion position was advocated there would be no hue and cry would there?
Those books that deal in superstitious matters atheists like to rail against?
The offense is noticably left out.
And the writer's explicit point is what? Was there a US flag there too?
So was the camp closed due to "brain-washing" or from the effects of vandalism, abuse and hate mail?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Andrea:
You're right, it's not just religious parents, in his new book he extended the claim to any religious authority figure that encourages belief in doctrines he doesn't like.
Comment by Guts — December 16, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Great point. It turns out that Andrea's "evidence" actually shows us the coercive side of labeling others as child abusers. Then again, perhaps this is a great place to explore Dawkins-type morality. If those kids were being abused, abusive phone calls, hate mail, and vandalism are probably morally justified, right?
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Prior to following her link I expected to find a report linking the camp to sexual or other obvious abusive behavoir. The activity objected to reveals more about those complaining than it does about the camp itself. Dawkins and his followers have an obvious hostility to anything associated with religion. If Dawkins directed his tirades against ethnic minorities or gays he would be condemned by those who tolerate his antics- and rightly so. Bigotry is not dead. You just have to know who is an acceptable target.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Richard Dawkins has never made a secret of his loathing for *all* religions, or his disdain for *all* religious people. He wears bigotry on his sleeve for all to see and know him by…
Except for Andrea, apparently.
Comment by Joy — December 16, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Perhaps the video game 'Left Behind' will be added to this wild ride of commentary? Is this what Andrea draws out of his dialogues - extreme polarization? Please excuse that it seems to me once again TT's is allowing something or someone to distract them from more important matters, even the issue of MG categorizing 4+1 types of (what he calls an) ID-critic.
Curious to know if Andrea tries to counter-balance the teachings at Sunday School when his kids are at home. After all, it may seem 'rational' to bring one's children back to 'reality' when one thinks they are merely being taught a fantasy, something 'not-real.' Would he make the argument that prayer and obedience simply could not knock down the walls of Jericho as the Bible says, if his children suggested this to him? Or would he just let the lesson take its historical course?
It seems to me that this thread once again amply demonstrates how Mike prefers arguing with certain 'critics' above others, i.e. B's and C's (according to his classification)? The misrepresentation of D's has been discussed. The humour of E's is still lingering. And A's, well, isn't Mike Gene himself somehow, sometimes pro-science, even if he doesn't consider i+d as 'scientific'? Doesn't Mike wish to keep 'science' free from politics and metaphysics? If so, doesn't he count as a representative figure, since he is obviously critical of the DI's politics and smuggling in of metaphysics, from time to time. (But perhaps not *now*)
Repeat question to help with balance: Would Mike Gene be willing to say what percentages of ID critics he thinks fall into each of his four/five categories?
Would Mike be willing to say who are his heroes?
Better to err on the side of caution in finger-pointing, eh, Mike? Haven't you based your entire 'argument/presumption' for i+d on the basis of a hunch?
Come to think of it, would Mike Gene be willing to write a thread on the flip side of this one - explaining types of ID-advocates/promoters? Probably he's done it somewhere already and it just didn't cross my path.
Comment by g arago — December 16, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Hi Gregory,
I'd have to make a wild guess and it would be based mostly only on my years of internet experience arguing with hundreds of critics. I'd guess:
Type A: ca. 30%
Type B: ca. 5%
Type C: ca. 45%
Type D: ca. 20%
Type E. ca. 1%
I would have to say many of my fellow travelers on the internet (here and from ARN). I acknowledge them in my book because if it wasn't for them, I wouldn't be here.
I had wondered if someone would make that connection. But there is a difference, Gregory. It's okay to follow and share your hunch about the origin of life and evolution. But when it comes to posturing as a scientist/scholar and labeling other people as child abusers, you need a whole lot more than a hunch.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Interesting. It now becomes apparent why your focus is biology, and not mathematics.
Aw, shucks. (Hey, wait a minute - did you include me in your book, or not?)
Comment by Douglas — December 16, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Andrea:
No, I told you I wanted to stay focused on the types of critics. But since you taunted me, I replied. I think I am now in a great position to return the favor and taunt you, but I will choose not to (then again, according to Dawkins, can I really "choose"?).
But there has been a recent development that has further strengthened my already strong hand. You wrote:
Dawkins has signed a petition to make a religious upbringing illegal.
As you can see, my choice of the word "coerce" was spot on.
If I were you, I'd back away from defending Dawkins.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
You'll have to buy the book.
LOL.
Yes, I acknowledged you and several of the ARNies.
How could I not acknowledge the one person who acknowledges Gramma Gene?
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
I've just come onto this discussion, a day or so late. I never thought I'd see someone arguing that Dawkins doesn't have a coercive approach, or denying that he has equated a Christian upbringing with child abuse. It's amazing what will people will believe.
Comment by TomG — December 16, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Weren't we saying that about Andrea just recently about another topic , lol I think he's our resident Baghdad Bob.
Comment by Guts — December 16, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Mike,
Dang.
Really? By name, or by description (i.e., "Buff, long-haired, trimly bearded, possible future Presidential candidate with a rebellious Secretary", etc.)?
Oh, yes. Gramma Gene down on the Rabbit Farm.
Comment by Douglas — December 17, 2006 @ 7:45 am
December 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Here is what Dawkins actually says regarding religion and child abuse:
— The God Delusion, pg. 318
Comment by Gretchen — December 29, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 10:57 am
[...] There has been an interesting flap that started when MikeGene at Telic Thoughts proposed a typology of ID critics, and Ed Brayton responded, with further response again from MikeGene. [...]
Pingback by Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Why I Oppose ID — December 30, 2006 @ 10:57 am