The sign on the sleeve reads: "babyPolitico: activism starts early". Now, we all know that Dawkins thinks that it's "a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child". I wonder if he's going to do anything about this?
This entry was posted on Saturday, September 24th, 2005 at 1:59 am and is filed under Evolution, Humor.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/mommy-where-did-i-come-from/trackback/
Yes, Dawkins can teach children all about how they are the result of this blind purposeless process and how when they and everyone else dies it's all over. I'm sure that will do wonders for the troubled teenage soul.
I wonder how many serious scholars really rate him or his musings — philosophicaly or even scientificaly? He just seems to be this mouthpiece that says everything many of the world's atheists wish they could say, but don't.
Perhaps in the end it's people like Dawkins with their dismissive arrogance that keep people coming back to ID. Heck, I want ID to be true just to stick it to him.
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 24, 2005 @ 9:40 am
Dawkins has many fans among the "serious scholars." From this interview, we learn that "Richard Dawkins' first book, The Selfish Gene (1976), became an immediate international bestseller and was translated into all the major languages. Its sequel, The Extended Phenotype, followed in 1982. His other bestsellers include River Out of Eden (1995), Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), and Unweaving the Rainbow (1998). Dawkins won both the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Los Angeles Times Literary Prize in 1987 for The Blind Watchmaker. The television film of the book, shown in the 'Horizon' series, won the Sci-Tech Prize for the Best Science Program of 1987. He has also won the 1989 Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London and the 1990 Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of the public understanding of science. In 1994 he won the Nakayama Prize for Human Science and in 1995 was awarded an Honorary D.Litt. by the University of St Andrews. Humanist of the Year Award 1996. Since 1996 has been Vice President of the British Humanist Association. Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997. Winner of the 1997 (Fifth) International Cosmos Prize in Commemoration of Expo' 90."
From the same interview: "You would never refer to a child as an atheist child." – Richard Dawkins
That's quite a CV he's got there. No wonder he's a celeb.
The link you provide is interesting. I don't think there's anything wrong with raising your kids as atheists despite the fact that some children 'might' find it rather bleak. In the end I don't really know what the effects are either way and I suppose Dawkin's doesn't have a clue either. My deep suspicion about what makes 'good kids' is that it has less to do with "atheism" or "religion" and more to do with "love" and "acceptance" but what do I know.
In the end I might understand Dawkin's getting upset with parents raising their children to be ignorant or dismissive of opposing viewpoints but the notion that raising your child as a Catholic is a form of child abuse (funny, as a Catholic my parents nor any of the priests and teachers I've ever spoken to or heard from have ever pushed the notion of hell) is actually pretty disgusting.
It's commentaries like that which make me think the guy is just a straight up anti-religious bigot — but the atheists and humanists of the world love him. He's their hero! Go Dawkins Go!
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 25, 2005 @ 12:20 am
I agree. I don't have a problem with parent's raising the children as atheists or whatever. But Dawkins has a problem with parent's raising their children as Catholics, Baptists, etc. It tells you who the real "fundamentalist" is.
I agree as well. Dawkins is certainly entitled to raise his children any way he wants, including teaching them to accept unsupported phobias, such as that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse. That's the consequence of living in a free society.
Krauze: Dawkins is certainly entitled to raise his children any way he wants…
It should be noted that there are laws and limits. It should also be noted that those laws only apply when "caught" breaking them. And a third note is those laws and limits may and do vary depending on where one lives.
And those notes bring up another point- what is "right" and "good" in one part of the world is neither "right" nor "good" in another.
Here is an example- To me the thought of herding & corralling animals for the only purpose being for human consumption, is very disturbing and disgusting. My wife is from Buenos Aires- one big meat & leather export city. Who is right? Which is good?
Another example is cats & dogs are menu fare in some countries, but get caught with either on your plate in the USA and watch out.
When the children ask I inform them the best I can. (except I'm not "mommy"- d'oh )
Too many people relate religion to ignorance.
I tell them that I hope to become as "ignorant" as Newton, Galileo, Pasteur, Einstein (et al.), became in their day of discovery. I also wish the same level of ignorance on all children.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
The demon of science isn't religion. It is the lure of the almighty dollar via "get-rich-quick" schemes and other such endeavors. Science requires hard work. Why work that hard when one can become an "American Idol"
That is the consequence of living in a free society…