Dawkins is still jumping the shark
by KrauzeRichard Dawkins has regretted signing and promoting a petition to make religious upbringing illegal. Or, well, sort of. In reality, he only talks about "teaching the Bible as literature" and "teaching comparative religion", which he is in favor of. But at no point does he mention his stand on religious upbringing - where the Bible may be taught as history, and where only the beliefs of one religion is taught. Should that be legal for parents to do?
But that isn't all. In a later comment, Dawkins goes on to claim that "LABELLING children with the religion of their parents is child abuse." Oh yeah? There exists a large body of professional literature on the subject of child abuse. Where are the studies that show that being called a Catholic child or a Muslim child is child abuse? Dawkins often speaks about the importance of science and evidence. So why doesn't he use the scientific method to answer this question?
Update: The petition is still being promoted on Dawkins' website, so it's possible that we're dealing with an imposter.
Update 2: Forget the previous update. PZ Myers has been in contact with Richard Dawkins, and presumably it is him in the comments.
December 30th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I commented on PZ's blog (if it goes through) that he thinks Ed and Mike are claiming Dawkins hasn't promoted this particular petition (he points out the "Abolish faith schools" one), but in reality, he has failed to notice that Dawkins is promoting both on his site.
Moral: Don't let the facts get in the way of accusing an "ID creationist" of a "bait-and-switch".
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 30, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Talk about meta-shark-jumping - TT is jumping the shark about Dawkins's shark-jumping!
Give it up already. Do you really think every moral assessment has to be scientifically justified? Would you demand to have to scientific proof that offering a beer to a 16 year old is going to lead them to alcoholism and debauchery before instituting a ban on serving alcohol to minors? Somehow, I suspect this logic is not going to go down well with those who argue that we need to ban gay marriage to defend traditional heterosexual unions…
Seriously, Dawkins has actually explained why he makes that argument, if one bothers to look into it. He points out, for one, that in many regions were religious strife exists - Northern Ireland for instance - children are often involuntarily drawn into the strife by the mindless labeling of them as if they actually belonged to one religious faction or another. Not only it exposes them to violence from adults, who are more likely to see them as a legitimate targets or acceptable collateral damage because of their assigned religious affiliation, but it also fosters animosity, resentment and aggression even among the children themselves. The latter is true also in ordinary schools in many parts of the world, including here, as many American children of Muslim parents have found out after 9/11. In the long run, labeling children perpetuates their society's religious stereotypes and divisions.
Once again, one is free to agree or disagree with Dawkins's characterization and conclusions, and to argue against them, but to misrepresent his views as absurd, unmotivated or even lunatic in order to score some point against a strawman is just intellectually dishonest.
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
But at no point does he mention his stand on religious upbringing - where the Bible may be taught as history, and where only the beliefs of one religion is taught. Should that be legal for parents to do?
This is the crux of it. If Dawkins et. al are simply voicing their displeasure- fine. If they are intent on "consciousness raising," a code term for future political action, then Dawkins' regret is worth nothing.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
The cat is out of the bag and it's not going back in. Dawkins believes that bringing up a child in a particular religious tradition should be illegal. And what does the word "illegal" imply but government coercion. Governments punish wrongdoers for engaging in certain behaviors. That's coercion.
Comment by bj — December 30, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Andrea,
The statement "LABELLING children with the religion of their parents is child abuse" is not merely a moral claim; it is an empirical claim that Dawkins, being the promoter of science that he is, should be citing some statistics for.
By the way, every time I hear this claim, I keep hearing Mel Konner in my head saying how Dawkins is abusing language by this claim. Too little is said about that, in my opinion.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 30, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Good point; I'll be blogging about this.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
On the bright side, PZ did correct his claim about Dawkins linking the petition on his website, but he didn't take back his assertion that Mike committed a "bait-and-switch". Eh, I'll take what I can get.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 30, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Hi ChristianCynic,
"On the bright side, PZ did correct his claim about Dawkins linking the petition on his website, but he didn't take back his assertion that Mike committed a "bait-and-switch"."
PZ accuses Mike of pulling a "bait-and-switch" on the basis of something that turns out to be wrong. So he removes the "fact" but leaves the accusation up. What is it they say about not letting facts get in the way of damning someone?
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Hey, I already used that line!
Frankly, I figure that it's a lucky thing that any correction was made. PZ doesn't exactly strike me as the gracious type.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 30, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Mel Konner objection is in part valid, of course: it is true that, at least probably among most sensible people, to say that a child is Muslim, Christian or Hindu is just equivalent to saying they come from a Muslim, Christian or Hindu family. But the truth is, that is not always the case, and the consequences of the exceptions may be far more severe than the annoyance and discomfort we may feel in having to change our labels.
Dawkins relies the incident of girls form Catholic families in Northern Ireland being subject to verbal abuse and violence by Protestants on their way to school. Sure no one would argue that those Protestants paused and reflected: "Wait - when I say these are Catholic schoolgirls, I really mean they are just girls from Catholic families. They actually have no choice in the matter and should not be involved in our sectarian hatred." Those people just saw the girls as Catholics, hence as enemies to be fought.
If there is one thing that the civil rights struggles have taught us, is that changing labels can help bring about a change in attitudes.
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Here is the crucial question for Dawkins:
Many parents take their children to church, synagogue, mosque, etc., weekly. In that setting the children receive instruction in the tenets of one religion, and in the actions of that God in history. The children are immersed in the culture of one religion. These are not comparative religion classes. They are not "the Bible as literature" classes. Parents and their friends hope that the children will accept this religion as the truth. There is an unavoidable and inescapable element of groupthink and pressure of some force upon children to accept that religion as their own. Do you believe that this kind of activity on the part of parents toward children should be illegal?
My personal opinion is that Dawkins would answer, yes.
Comment by bj — December 30, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Andrea:
Not always the case? may be? Please provide the scientific evidence for how often "more severe than the annoyance and discomfort we may feel in having to change our labels" and outline your methodology whereby you reached this conclusion.
The scientist offers us a sensational anecdote.
This from the guy who has spent years insisting that we be labeled as "˜creationists.'
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Hi Andrea,
"He points out, for one, that in many regions were religious strife exists - Northern Ireland for instance - children are often involuntarily drawn into the strife by the mindless labeling of them as if they actually belonged to one religious faction or another."
Does Dawkins present any evidence that this would change if children were instead refered to as "children of Catholic parents"
Besides, even if true, this wouldn't provide any comfort for Dawkins' statement that a religious label is in itself child abuse. It's easy to cherry pick situations in which any particular upbringing leads to negative consequences for the child. But using this to generalize and label that particular upbringing as abusive is, as Konner has pointed out, an abuse of language.
"The latter is true also in ordinary schools in many parts of the world, including here, as many American children of Muslim parents have found out after 9/11."
Oh yes, if only more kids would have thought of saying, "I'm not a Muslim child but a child of Muslim parents" as the bullies approached…
"Once again, one is free to agree or disagree with Dawkins's characterization and conclusions, and to argue against them, but to misrepresent his views as absurd, unmotivated or even lunatic in order to score some point against a strawman is just intellectually dishonest."
I never called Dawkins' views "absurd, unmotivated or even lunatic". I simply asked him to present some evidence for them. But in your view, that is "intellectually dishonest." Insctructive.
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Agreed, neither did I. And doing a search on the relevant threads I did not find the words, "lunatic" or "absurd" used by the ID proponents to describe Dawkins signing of the petition.
In fact, in the Jump the Shark Thread, I specifically said:
You were saying something about misreprestations and intellectual honesty, Andrea?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 30, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Even granting this is true, it's still not child abuse by any stretch of the mind. Using that phrase is a rhetorical tool to persuade people without looking at the substance of the claim. After all, we all love the children (they're our future!), and if something constitutes abuse, we must stop it. No time to stop and think about it - we must act now! That's the sort of urgency that is implied by the use of the phrase 'child abuse'. I haven't read TGD (nor probably will I at all, but I of course won't criticize it either based on that lack of information), but it sounds to me from your examples that this isn't a clear cut issue of perceived child abuse at all. (Feel free, of course, to correct me on this.)
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 30, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
I must be missing the boat. I found that he signed the petition less troubling than he supported the more onerous aspects of it. He has not retracted that support, and only regrets signing (if I read correctly) because the petition allegedly calls for making academic teaching (e.g., Comparative Religion) illegal. I doubt that it actually has that intent"”presumably the petition sponsors would not be against teaching the tenets of monotheism in the same manner that one can teach Greek Mythology"”but it has provided Dawkins with a face-saving escape.
There are many facets of Dawkins position that are clouded in obscurity. His emphasis on labeling or defining"”does that mean he is more against calling a child a Catholic than rearing him as one? And the vagueness of certain "aspects" are abusive. That allows Dawkins apologists to imply that nice respectable religious child rearing is OK, just don't cross some undefined line. But where is that line?
Well, recall that Dawkins wrote, in The God Delusion:
It seems clear that, on rare occasions when he reveals something about "which aspects are child abuse" we find, at least in this case, mainstream teaching crossing the line. In fact, it may be worse than sexual abuse at the hands of priests! Think about that for a moment: a Catholic family teaching the catechism (which includes the doctrine of eternal damnation) may be committing a greater abuse than sexual-predator priests.
I reiterate my opinion that, while Dawkins no doubt cares about children, that's not his primary concern. He is anti-religion. The child abuse ploy is his wedge document.
Comment by David Heddle — December 30, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Why is it scientific proof is always required by the Dawkins folk until they make an assertion that isn't supported at all scientifically?
Yes, Andrea, if you are going to change laws in such a way that have the potential to send parents to jail for teaching their children their religious beliefs, you better have some bullet proof science to back it up.
Removing religious labels does bring peace of a sort as demonstrated in the old Soviet Union, China, and North Korea; I would just as soon pass on that sort of 'peace'.
You know, short of Dawkins shouting from the rooof tops "I want to take over the world!", what would he have to say to convince you he at least has fascitic tendencies?
Comment by jhudson — December 30, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Andrea:
I can certainly agree that children suffer in certain cultures for being identified as belonging to an "out-group" targeted by an "in-group" for abuse. And that this is a terrible shame. But in climates where a kid can be hurt or killed for being a Shi'ite in a Sunni neighborhood (or vice versa) ie, what in the world would make you think those who would attack a "Shi'ite child" in the first place would spare that child if s/he were just a "child of Shi'ites" And what about the younger than 16 set of rowdies out there beating up other children?
The ugliness of human sectarian violence is just one more blemish on the scarred facade of humanity's earthly sojourn. It would be nice if we could evolve past the juvenile delinquent stage, but legislation isn't an evolutionary mechanism unless you're willing to admit there's something to ID after all. And Dawkins has been adding his own brand of sectarian conflict to the stew for many years. Bigotry and hatred aren't exactly Gandhi-like qualities, you know.
The label issue is a red herring, IMO. A sleight-of-mind, or maybe a 'wedge'. It's tolerance we need, and that can be accomplished in a few generations through social pressure rather than law. Bigotry and hatred and laws against beliefs are not designed to foster tolerance.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
From someone who fabricated out of his own wild imagination that Dawkins favors "mak[ing] it illegal for people to take their children to church", and that made a series of ever-shrillier and holier-than-thou pronouncements on the implications of Dawkins's signature on a petition he did not write, while steadfastly ignoring his own words, that would be almost comical, if it weren't just sad, Mike.
One thing is true, though: if you set out to use this episode as an example of how stereotypes can blind one's ability to reason, discuss rationally and admit errors, then you succeeded admirably, although of course the complaint ended up applying to you far more than to Dawkins. Nice job.
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Andrea:
Nice spin. But let's deal with facts. Dawkins admits that he read the petition that states, "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." Do you see that word "illegal" or is that my imagination? Dawkins admits he signed the petition. And in his ambiguous apology, Dawkins admits he was wrong. Brayton says it best:
There is another interesting aspect to the apology. Someone as influential as Dawkins admits that he signed a political document with little thought, while instead relying on his emotions.
Oh, and BTW, the link to the petition is still up on his web page.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Mike,
Your bias is blinding you.
Clearly Andrea is not implying that you made up the word "illegal" from your wild imagination.
It is the nonsensical leap you made from "indoctrination" to "taking to church".
Obviously, what is taught in church is comparative religion and the literary appreciation of the Bible.
It is nothing like the indoctrination which RD has said is abusive and should be outlawed.
And, of course, since Dawkins did not write the petition you cannot presume his signing of it as an endorsement. Nor can you take his further explanation (where he describes reading the part of the petition where indoctrination would be legal, and being delighted by this) at face value.
Comment by Pez — December 30, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
David,
You write:
I agree. And I think this should be obvious to reasonable people. Has Dawkins ever done any consciousness-raising about child abuse in a secular setting?
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Well stated.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I would like to point out the Richard Dawkins Foundation has a sizable stake in the USA from American donors. Although the petition he signed was to affect law in the UK, in light of his interests in the US, he has to be senstitive to his support base here…..
I think there is a reason Dawkins felt compelled to react to Ed Brayton's complaints, and it had to do with his need to be sensitive to attitudes in the USA to what he says.
That's the other thing about this. We have an exalted, unapproachable scientist hanging out in the basement of teenagers and swimming through the swamps of the internet. I mean, would Bill Gates be visiting the weblog of obscure computer nerds? What gives? Recall, he couldn't bring himself to even be at the same table with the vernerable George Gilder….
It almost seems what is posted here at TelicThoughts eventually reaches Richard Dawkins.
Has Dawkins really jumped the shark?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 30, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
While Andrea was wrong in his claim that I called Dawkins' views "absurd, unmotivated or even lunatic", let's look at what Brayton wrote:
"This proposal is every bit as noxious and totalitarian as a proposal from Christian reconstructionists that those who teach their children about witchcraft or atheism should be thrown in jail would be."
"As far as I'm concerned, this pretty much removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people."
Dawkins' proposal is "noxious", "totalitarian" and removes him from "any discussion among reasonable people" My, that sounds a bit harsher than what Andrea just accused me of. So why isn't he over at Brayton's blog, accusing him of intellectually dishonesty?
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 7:00 am
Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position…
Those of you who have been watching the blogs over the last few days know that a kerfluffle has gone on about Richard Dawkins’s position on religion and religious freedom. Basically, Dawkins signed this scary-sounding petition, someone at Richar…
Trackback by The Panda's Thumb — December 31, 2006 @ 7:00 am
December 31st, 2006 at 11:31 am
Of course, I did not accuse you of doing that (although, strictly speaking "jumping the shark" when applied to a person could be roughly equivalent to "going off the deep end", or "making a fool of oneself by losing all sense of proportions and reason in the pursuit of something" - again, meta-shark-jumping in this case). But people on this blog have accused Dawkins of wanting to prohibit parents from "taking children to church" (still do in this thread, despite all clarifications, equating an instance of instruction on something as the totality of the instruction. I guess they would also think that approvingly teaching children the US constitution is equivalent to nationalistic indoctrination… but I diverge, and it's pointless to argue with obvious fools), "declare war on all religion and begin a quest to once and for all rid the world of the religious scourge", curtailing the First Amendment, "to criminalize religious upbringing", of being "a[n] extremist with visions of authoritarian-type rule", etc etc.
I was. I told him he screwed up both privately and publicly. In fact, at 5:58 EST yesterday I posted at Ed's blog:
Now Dawkins has further clarified his point, and TT ends up looking even more foolish for the shrill intensity you have pursued this nonsense. Again, I suggest you cut your losses, acknowledge that Dawkins never argued for the rabid fanaticism you accused him of, and move on.
Comment by Andrea — December 31, 2006 @ 11:31 am
December 31st, 2006 at 11:41 am
Let's see:
I ask Dawkins for some scientific evidence to support his claim that calling a child "Catholic" is child abuse, and Andrea is right on the spot, talking about the intellectual dishonesty of TT writers.
Brayton calls Dawkins' proposal "noxious", "totalitarian" and say that it removes him from "any discussion among reasonable people", and Andrea goes over there to "humbly suggest that a little more humility and caution would be in order."
Parity in response, indeed.
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 11:41 am
December 31st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I actually compared Ed's behavior to that of obsessed fundamentalists: believe me, that is the same as "being dishonest". Of course, I consider Ed a friend, he has a plain history of being a rational and cool-headed thinker and he rarely if ever screws up so badly in his judgment, so I offered him the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, I am sorry to say but several people on this site have a history of irrationally jumping to conclusions and twisting facts when situations seem to conform to their deepest-felt prejudices and fears. That you guys keep talking and talking about Dawkins's ideas and "Agenda" (double-scary big A) when you obviously have not read much of his at all (and even proudly admitting it), relying instead on second-hand quotes and stereotypes, does nothing to convince me you deserve that benefit. I guess you'll have to earn it.
Comment by Andrea — December 31, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
Not anymore.
Comment by KC — January 1, 2007 @ 11:37 am
January 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Hi KC,
You're right. The link is gone, with no sign of ever having been there (compare this to this). It will be interesting to see if Dawkins will add an explanation, in case some of his readers didn't read it/didn't think it involved the government/thought it asked the government not to teach religion in schools and mistakenly signed it too.
Comment by Krauze — January 1, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The link disappeared on New Year's Eve. I agree with Krauze. Since Dawkins has rethought the petition and now sees the horrific nature of the petition, and since his official web page once promoted this political activity (and probably solicited signatures), shouldn't he also encourage the readers of his own web page to rethink their signature?
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I just wanted to say that I can sympathize with Andrea in the fact that the timbre here in response to Dawkins' signature in the first place was that this is the beginning of his irrationality in trying to wipe out religion, and Andrea seems to have wanted the posters here to recant on that after finding out Dawkins didn't know what he was signing (which really amuses me). I however think his current position on indoctrination and labeling as child abuse is insipid enough that this isn't an unreasonable position; it's just that we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt as to the process by which he wishes to snuff out religion. I still doubt that he wants to persuade everyone by honest rational discourse since he doesn't seem to do very well with that these days, but at the very least, we should try to avoid vilifying him as a fascist who wants the government to abolish religion altogether.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 1, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
By the way, from the sounds of it, someone could pull a serious con on Dawkins for a lot of money. Just put something in front of him that includes the phrase "allowing parents to label their children with their religious beliefs is child abuse" prominently at the top; I'd wager that he'll sign it without even reading the rest.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 1, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I agree that Dawkins himself is clearly not a fascist who wants the government to abolish religion altogether. What is clear is that he deeply hates religion and is being driven by his emotions. He admitted that it was his passion that led him to sign the petition. In other words, his emotions caused him to comit an act of stupidity that had political consequences. It's one thing to get emotional and make some comments. Its another to get emotional and sign and circulate a political petition.
The problem with his "consciousness raising" efforts is that he abandons his principles about critical thinking, reason and evidence and is now using propaganda to appeal to emotions. Labeling religious parents as child abusers can only enhance emotional reactions on both sides and front-loads society such the similar petitions will again arise (from both sides) and when that happens, people will stand by their signature.
It's the lesson of the South Park cartoon.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Hi Krauze,
Check again. He has posted Nick Matzke's post on Panda's Thumb explaining his position.
Comment by KC — January 1, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
This makes me really sad. You'd think a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science would have some knowledge of how to go about understand things in their entirety and what effects his public actions might have in the public realm. I've maintained that people make mistakes, but it's like he rationalizes his own error while acknowledging it. Maybe he needs some "consciousness-raising" of his own.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 1, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Yes, this is the type of thing that creates doubts about his sincerity. I guess it was just wrongoid (something that looks wrong, but never really was wrong).
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Why waste cyberspace on Dawkins? He is a loser. He has recently decided that Einstein is his hero, apparently oblivious to what Einstein thought about the likes of him -
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source… They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 2, 2007 @ 11:52 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
The problem with ignoring Dawkins is that he has a great deal of influence. Besides, there's plenty of cyberspace out there, and I doubt we'll run out of it anytime soon.
Just as long as we can discuss issues other than Dawkins' gross errors of judgment.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 2, 2007 @ 12:21 pm