Dawkins Replies on Ed's Blog
by MikeGeneFrom here:
I did sign the petition, but I hadn't thought it through when I did so, and I now regret it. I have asked the organizer to remove my name. Unfortunately, it seems that the list has already gone off to Downing Street but the organizer, Jamie Wallis, has kindly asked their web manager to remove my name. I suspect that he himself may be having second thoughts about the wording, and I respect him for that. It isn't always easy to get the exact wording right.
I signed it having read only the main petition: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." I regret to say that I did not notice the supporting statement with the heading, "More details from petition creator": "In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians." If I had read that, I certainly would not have signed the petition, because, as explained in The God Delusion, I am in favour of teaching the Bible as literature, and I am in favour of teaching comparative religion. In any case, like any decent liberal, I am opposed to the element of government coercion in the wording. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, thank goodness, does not have the power to 'make' anything 'illegal'. Only parliament has the power to do that.
I signed the main petition, because I really am passionately opposed to DEFINING children by the religion of their parents (while 'indoctrination' is such a loaded word, nobody could be in favour of it). I was so delighted to hear of somebody else who cared about the defining or labelling of children by the religion of their parents (how would you react if you heard a child described as a 'seclular humanist child' or a 'neo-conservative child'?) that I signed it without reading on and without thinking. Mea culpa.
December 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Here's something C. S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
Though only some of those who post here are Christians, I think this is good advice all around.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 30, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Dawkins: I am in favour of teaching the Bible as literature, and I am in favour of teaching comparative religion.
Dawkins is entitled to his feelings. Like many others I'm in favor of a much broader scope than teaching as literature or in a comparative religion setting. As long as Dawkins and his followers recognize that the broader scope rules in a free society, there is no problem.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
WFO,
I hope I have taken your point well.
However, I am unconvinced (double negative aside) that Dawkins is not quite so bad as it was made out.
His explanation here rings of political expediency and comes across to me as entirely duplicitous.
He still agrees with this, and presumably would sign it again:
He would not, he says, have signed this:
Why? Because:
Are we to believe that when Dawkins reads "regular religious teaching" he thinks of "teaching the Bible as literature" and not "indoctrination"
Is that what anybody means when they discuss receiving a religious education, and would Dawkins have said so in any other context?
By my reading what he opposes is the teaching that a religious belief is a true belief. This is what I am sure was intended by the phrase "regular religious teaching", as I am equally sure it had nothing to do with "teaching the Bible as literature".
Nobody would confuse studying "Kubla Khan" with indoctrination into the search for Xanadu.
On the other hand, I do accept that Dawkins didn't fully read the petition, nor think it through, before adding the weight of his name, reputation and title to it.
As he states in the first paragraph quoted here, what he regrets is not the sentiment but the wording.
As he passionately opposes defining children by their parents' religion, as well as mentioning that nobody can favour their indoctrination into that religion (the part of the petition he read wants this indoctrination made illegal).
I guess his problem is that he now reads "children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching" and sees this as a ban on comparative religious studies and not a ban on indoctrination (with which he would agree, indeed, "nobody could be in favour of" indoctrination).
Comment by Pez — December 30, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Dawkins:
While I'm glad Dawkins had the good political sense to offer a mea culpa to his fan club on this, it still strikes me a little odd that he's so "passionately opposed" to innocuous labeling. Kids do not become confirmed members of most denominations - including Britain's state denomination - until they're ~13. So it's a 3-year period of time in other people's teenagers lives he's so passionate about, supporting law that would make it illegal for 13, 14 and 15 year olds to profess their parents' faith. I find this overblown concern for other people's young teenagers just a little bit creepy.
See, the labeling issue is a red herring the size of Moby Dick. The only thing congregational membership rolls are good for is comparing the difference between actual membership and self-professions of faith in polls and on census forms. Thus his labeling beef is with pollsters and census takers, not with religions, religious congregations, religious parents or the self-professed faith of any individual.
Since it's objectively obvious from his essays, television shows, books, foundation, personal web page and speeches that his real issue is the right of parents to instruct their children in their faith, he hasn't walked back from the coercion stance at all.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
This is the part that I would say "thank goodness even he isn't this bad" about. Though Pez, you are right - there is no reason to be naive. It's just important to stop and examine ourselves and our motives - to make sure our criticism is well founded.
Dawkins is sooooo fun to hate, and therein lies the danger…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 30, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Hi Wonders for Oyarsa,
The problem with that line is that Dawkins also says that he only read the first part of the petition, which wants to make it "illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." If Dawkins is opposed to the "element of government coercion", why did he sign a petition making something illegal? At the very least, this shows Dawkins to be a shallow thinker, who signs things without fully reading them and thinking of their implications. At the worst, it suggests that his "retraction" has more to the with political expediency than with personal conviction.
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I honestly don't recall in conservative protestant circles that a child is called a Christian child because the parents are Christian. In fact, much is made about the hope each child becomes a Christian by choice, not by birth.
That is my recollection any way. Any other Christians out there with similar experience. Do we call children of Evangelical homes "Christian Children" or "Evangelical Children" Do we teach these kids that they are Christians soley because their parents are Chrisitan????
Maybe on his side of the Atlantic that may be the case (perhaps in Ireland), but here in the USA, I'm not so sure how prevalent the practice is…
What is it like in Engand these days?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 30, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Salvador T. Cordova:
Actually, in my experience it has been the exact opposite. We are taught that you don't become a Christian by "riding on the coat tails" of your parents. We are taught very explicitly that to become a Christian you need to understand "the basics" and make the decision yourself, whenever you choose to do so. In fact, in order to truly "become a Christian," you need to understand the decision that you are making.
No child becomes a Christian "by birth," or just because their parents call them "Christians."
Furthermore, who gives a hoot what someone is called or how they define their children? If religion is truly a result of RM+NS, what difference is it if I "label" my child a Christian verses labelling them anything else that has been created by RM+NS?
Comment by CJYman — December 30, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
My opinion is that Dawkins has noticed a strong opposition to the petition even amongst those atheists who otherwise regularly support him, and he is attempting to cut his losses by a bit of sleight of hand. That is, I don't believe him when he says he hadn't read the otehr part of the petition, especially since the other part doesn't really say much that the first part doesn't at least imply.
Comment by Douglas — December 30, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Douglas wrote:
I think you've got it right. I think that Dawkin's recent publishing success in the US caused him to misjudge his position. He also misjudged the American character. Atheists here are, after all, American atheists. They, like all of us, are not going to accept governmental action that is contrary to the very principles upon which this country was founded. They will forgive him, but his standing is damaged.
Comment by bj — December 30, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Richard Dawkins is to Darwinism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckism in the 1920s. They are both charlatans. Kammerer, once exposed, killed himself. I doubt Dawkins has the guts although I am willing to bet it has crossed his mind. He has painted himself into a corner with his compulsive "prescribed" knee jerk atheism. I see no way out for him. His books have become progressively more deranged. God only knows what he will be writing next. He is the last major writer of evolutionary fiction having inherited the mantle of Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould. Not one of them was ever a scientist. All three prematurely abandoned a career in science to become voluntarily glued to their endowed chairs at two of our most distinguished institutions, Oxford and Harvard, where they spent the rest of their egocentric lives cranking out several meters of library shelving dedicated solely to themselves and their gullible followers. Clever wordsmiths like those three lightweights give special meaning to the insights of Montaigne -
"He that I am reading seems always to have the most force."
and
"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
We should be reminded of the words of Louis Agassiz who founded the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard where Gould and Mayr spent most of their professional lives desperately denying that there is order, design and purpose in every aspect of the universe.
"Study Nature, not books."
If Agassiz knew what had happened to his museum he would be rolling in his grave.
Gould, Mayr and Dawkins - I have come to call them the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science. They have contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of the greatest mystery in all of biological science, organic evolution. Worse, their influence has without question greatly inhibited that understanding and continues to do so to this very day.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — December 30, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 11:06 am
bj,
The wonders of randomness and large probabilistic resources.
Comment by Douglas — December 31, 2006 @ 11:06 am