On Coercion and Stereotypes
by MikeGeneEd Brayton has replied to my blog where I offer a typology of ID critics. I should point out that I offered this typology up to readers of Telic Thoughts in an attempt to encourage more fair-mindedness about the critics of ID, recognizing a diversity of thought and attitude among them. For example, one should not use Richard Dawkins as the archetype of all ID critics and then paint someone like Ed with this particular broad brush.
Ed take's issue with two points in my blog.
First, he notes:
I think his choice of words in saying that the Richard Dawkins type of ID critic wants to "coerce people" into accepting their beliefs is both inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory. He may perceive Dawkins to be a bully, but there is no evidence that he advocates any type of coercion whatsoever.
When it comes to the Evangelical Atheists and their attempt to convert people to atheism, they have the classic choice of the carrot or the stick. The type B critics choose the carrot, trying to lure people into atheism with the wonders of science. The type C critics choose the stick, which also includes the heavy-handed portrayal of all religious people as being either stupid, dishonest, and/or deluded. And yes, I do indeed view this type rhetoric as a form of bullying, which is much closer to coercion than persuasion.
But there is really no need to debate this. Concerning the Richard Dawkins type of ID critic, it is quite relevant to point out that Richard Dawkins has recently signed a petition that asks his government to make it illegal for people to take their children to church. The petition reads:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.
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.
Dawkins' Official Web Page also links to this petition at the top of the page, meaning that Dawkins is effectively circulating this petition.
This is not evidence of coercion???
As for the second point, Ed thinks I have gone off track with this description:
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."
Yet he then spends the rest of his blog demonstrating that my description was on track, as he tries to justify his broad brushed approach that includes stereotypes and labels. I have dealt with all his arguments before, and may rehash them again. But for now, I can simply point out that while I am willing to make a distinction between someone like Ed Brayton and Richard Dawkins, Ed apparently wants to lump me with Duane Gish and Philip Johnson, where, I suppose, the TT contributors are all nothing more than players in a "PR campaign to place a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terminology over good old-fashioned religious anti-evolutionism."
Will the critics of ID ever break free of their stereotypes and realize that not all proponents of ID can be painted with the same broad brush?
December 29th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
That comment referred to a different petition, but it is pretty clear what Dawkins's ideas are on the matter (he has also expressed them elsewhere, if one bothers to look).
As far as the issue goes, I would say that teaching about religion is OK, as well as having kids learn about their culture's traditions and rituals as such (including religious ones). Religious indoctrination, i.e. the teaching of a single religious point of view as the only correct, divinely approved(TM) one, to the exclusion of all others, and with the clear intent and expectation that the child will adopt that set of beliefs, often accompanied by threats for non-compliance (in this and/or the after-life), is itself a form of coercion on a child, and as such I find it neither completely insane nor necessarily coercive (*) to propose to limit it or even ban it.
That said, I think the petition in question is is a) unclear in its actual intent and very poorly worded, b) hopeless in even its more benign interpretations, c) impossible to implement, and d) likely a bad precedent. So I wouldn't have signed it, and find it at the very least puzzling, if not actually troubling that Dawkins did. A clear lapse of judgment on his part, in my opinion.
(*) at least not in the negative sense - of course strictly speaking all laws are coercive, but most of us would find it bizarre to complain about being "coerced" not to rob banks.
Comment by Andrea — December 29, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
of course strictly speaking all laws are coercive, but most of us would find it bizarre to complain about being "coerced" not to rob banks.
Right. It is the difference between a just and unjust law. Being coerced to not rob banks and having one's First Amendment rights curtailed illustrates the difference between just and unjust coercion.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Not as long as the broad brush gives traction to their opposition to ID. It appeals to their base and if it is an effective strategy with respect to those open to either side (primarily the young) the tactic will be the one of choice. It's not about accuracy or fairness. It's about the best way to advance one's agenda.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Andrea,
Actually, I think that's a load of crap. This would mean that for the majority of the United States' history, the majority of children were abused. Any premise that leads to such a startling conclusion should be suspect from the start. Perhaps it's right, but it is so beyond the pale that it needs to be carefully thought out.
Part of this thinking is based on a stereotype: that Christians are preaching fire and brimstone to their kids. Yes, I would guess that most kids of Christian parents are taught, at some point, that there is a hell. But it is not something that they dwell on, and not something used as a threat. (Of course, there are exceptions, but they should not dictate such a monumental abrogation of parental rights. This petition assumes that Christian parents like Carrie's mom in the Stephen King novel are common. They are exceptionally rare.)
There are mitigating factors as well. Little kids usually don't question their own faith, so they don't worry about hell. Older kids begin to question their faith"”but typically not in the sense that they worry that their parents religion is true but they don't measure up (which might make them worry about hell) but more likely they question the religion itself"”which would mean at the same time they would question the existence of hell. Another mitigating factor is that older kids think they'll live forever, and so they will have time to sort out the confusion at a later date.
The bottom line is that kids of religious parents do not go about worrying about hell. Never in my entire religious life have I encountered a child who lived in some sort agitated state of fear of going to hell. Sometimes adults do, but not kids.
I don't believe that many of the petition signers, including Dawkins (the old fraud) are primarily concerned with child abuse"”it's just a convenient hot-button. I believe they are simply anti-religion. They want to see it wiped off the planet, and the child-abuse petition is part of their "wedge" strategy.
Comment by David Heddle — December 29, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Can you kindly link to this, please? For the life of me, I can't find it on Dawkins' web site, even after doing a search for "petition." And on the petition site, I do not see Dawkins' name. I would like to have actual evidence of this claim before believing it.
Or, you know, the truth. One can simply explain the reasons why they think belief X is reasonable and worth holding without using punishments or rewards.
Comment by Gretchen — December 29, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Hi David,
Indeed. In case you missed it.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Let me reply here to some of the replies on Ed's blog.
The typology is not perfect, nor is it intended as some final word. That said, I do think it is a useful first step to acknowledge that someone like Ed Brayton is not the same as someone like Richard Dawkins. An attempt to move away from the broad-brushed approach is useful.
This may be true, but neither should we underestimate the signfiance of theological objections. Given that the critic hears "˜God' when "˜ID' is spoken, we must pay tribute to the religious critics' theological notions about the way God should interact with Nature. For example, several such critics find intervention to be theologically distasteful and misguided. For such critics, they would need very powerful evidence of intelligent intervention to overcome such theological objections.
Again, it helps to realize, for example, that Ed Brayton is not opposed to ID because he wants to rid the world of religion. It's not a matter of knowing your "enemy," it's a matter of understanding your opponents when they posture as judge. So it's "know your judges."
In other word's ID proponents are deluded; this is just an expression of the "stupid, dishonest, or deluded" stereotype. As for centering on religious motives, that is exactly what Ed's blog does. I am more than willing to discuss ID without discussion of religion and religious motives. But as one who has argued with 100s of critics, they commonly inject this dimension into the discussion. Thus, we need to factor the manner in which they hear "˜religion' when "˜ID' is spoken or written. Otherwise, we might labor under the impression that it's all about "the evidence."
And there is the dishonesty meme. First, this person fails to make the distinction between the concept of ID and the ID movement. In fact, this is another thing that ties critics together, where a political prism is relied upon whenever the concept of ID is considered. As for the theme that binds the critics together, this would be believeable is the same set of critics were equally riled by the animal rights movement. While the animal rights movement creates a climate that causes construction workers to mask their identities because they are building a science lab, destroys labs and research, and causes scientists to abandon their research, the same set of critics don't seem very riled by this at all.
I can understand this. After all, critics commonly squeeze me into the category of "a PR campaign to place a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terminology over good old-fashioned religious anti-evolutionism."
Like I said, the categories are not perfect or final. It's just an improvement over the broad-brushed approach.
Yes, Dawkins speaks of this.
Yes, that's the public image we're supposed to buy into. The image falls apart once we realize that Dawkins has said nothing about the way animal rights extremists have attacked his own university and instead is more busy trying to peddle the nonsensical notion that a religious upbringing is child abuse. Dawkins' fight is simply to promote his own extremism and trying to sugar-coat it as a "fight for people to aspire to rationality in all things" is silly.
This is a good point. So what happened to Dawkins' aspirations? Does he exclude himself from this goal?
This point is dealt with in my blog above. Also, notice the working assumption that unless we are dealing with Inquisition-style torture or blackmail, we're not dealing with coercion. There are far more subtle forms of coercion than this.
So now I am being pyschoanalyzed because of a word. I could easily return the favor and suggest this person is troubled by the word because they are uncomfortable with the limitations of science.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Personally I think telling children that they are simply "lumbering survival machines" controlled by "selfish genes" is a load of crap, and a form of indoctrination into a particular worldview.
Comment by MatthewCromer — December 29, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I should also add that I agree with Dawkins that indoctrination of children about burning in hell if they deviate from a particular religious belief is likely to be negative too, although I would never advocate legal sanctions against that teaching.
Comment by MatthewCromer — December 29, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
MikeGene says:
Not the way I define it. I don't consider even calling someone stupid for their beliefs coercive, though it may certainly be incorrect and morally wrong. You can't force someone to believe as you do except by brainwashing, and Dawkins certainly isn't trying to do that.
And you'd make no sense in doing so unless you can actually demonstrate what these limitations are and how a person is attempting to transgress them, which is the very problem with the term "scientism" in the first place. So far I have not seen any evidence that the people who tend to use it have any clear idea of where the limits of science are– they just appear to want science to have limits.
Comment by Gretchen — December 29, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Verbally abusing a child is also not covered by the First Amendment. The issue is whether you see religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse or not.
To the contrary - I think there is little doubt that for the majority of the United States' history, forms of corporal and psychological punishment on children which would clearly be seen and even prosecuted as child abuse today were considered acceptable and widely practiced. Same for many other forms of discrimination and abuse. So, indeed, the majority of children were abused for the majority of US history (or many other countries' history as well). So were of course women and certain racial minorities. Is that a "startling" and "suspect" conclusion? Really?
"History" doesn't mean a thing - social attitudes change, and well they should. Indeed, that's a major point in Dawkins's book, if any one bothers reading it.
I made the very same argument previously with Mike, pointing out that there is a continuum of patterns of generational transmission of religious belief ranging from rare but clear forms of religion-based child abuse (e.g. genital mutilation, forced marriages), going through cultism, "Jesus camp"-style brain-washing and "fire-and-brimstone" preaching, to more modest and possibly societally and individually tolerable forms of indoctrination, to open and pluralistic religious education. I would argue that as a society we generally already recognize that parents do not have an unfettered right to impose any and all religious customs or attitudes on their children, regardless of said customs' and attitudes' long-term effects on the body and psyche of the children themselves (see for instance court orders enforcing the medical treatment of children of Christian Scientists or Jehova's Witnesses). If we do, then it is neither crazy nor "coercive" on Dawkins's part to raise the issue of where the limits are (whether you accept where he puts them or not).
Comment by Andrea — December 29, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
One of the characteristics of close-mindedness is the willingness to accept strained arguments, as long as they support a belief you hold dear. Brayton provides a nice example when he argues that ID=religion by quoting Dembski's statement about intelligent design being "the Logos theology of John's Gospel".
Already here, the argument is strained. What matters is the logic of a design inference, not the opinions of those advocating ID. William Provine may think that evolution means that "No gods worth having exist", but that doesn't make evolution atheistic.
However, let's look at Brayton's argument in its own terms, pretending that the beliefs of ID supporters matter. What about those people who don't think that ID is "the Logos theology of John's Gospel", or who are indeed agnostics? Brayton acknowledges that such persons may exist, but dismiss the fact as irrelevant: "But until they actually produce a competing model that provides some positive case, there simply isn't any reason to take them seriously."
Why does Brayton take Dembski seriously when he speaks about the supposed theological content of intelligent design? Is it because Dembski has "produced a model providing some positive case" Hardly. I'd wager the guess that it's because Dembski is saying something that supports a belief Brayton holds dear.
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Verbally abusing a child is also not covered by the First Amendment. The issue is whether you see religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse or not.
No Andrea, the right to exercise one's religion is part of the First Amendment. Attempts to characterize that as child abuse is symptomatic of a vicious streak of intolerance that is typical of Dawkins and his followers.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Andrea,
How can that (social attitudes) matter? How can teaching your kids about hell be abusive in 2006 and not in 1906? Were kids tougher then? Does the fact that some now consider it abusive, make it abusive?
Comment by David Heddle — December 29, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
To the contrary - I think there is little doubt that for the majority of the United States' history, forms of corporal and psychological punishment on children which would clearly be seen and even prosecuted as child abuse today were considered acceptable and widely practiced.
My wife worked in the emergency room of a hospital for years and found no difficulty in distinguishing between child abuse and a swat on the behind. Victims are typically horribly abused. Your attempts to conflate this with historic child rearing practices speaks to your ignorance or worse. The fact that in contemporary USA America's prisons are filled to capacity might be a clue that our child rearing practices leave much to be desired.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
If psychological abuse can be defined as telling a child things which cause irrational fear, anxiety, and/or depression, then frankly I don't see how it matters if the content of that particular abusive language is religious or not. The freedom of religious expression is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, but that in no way means that such religious expression should be exempt from other laws which protect human beings from each other. I'm sure, for example, that you would not grant someone a right to sacrifice your cat if it were part of their religion. So ultimately it comes down to whether the things said to a child can be construed as abusive, regardless of their religious content or lack thereof.
Comment by Gretchen — December 29, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I think Ed would be singing a different tune if this were a petition (by, say, reconstructionists) to pass to law that requires the teaching of religious doctrines to children.
Comment by macht — December 29, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Yeah Ed!
Comment by macht — December 29, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
If they did that they might need to do more than just try their best to pretend they don't exist and silence them through court room
So don't hold your breath.
Jason
Comment by thesciphishow — December 29, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Macht says:
Eh? He opposes legislation banning indoctrination, and equally opposes legislation that requires indoctrination. No big mystery there! Once you determine that a person is firmly committed to freedom of speech– of any type– their opinions on things like this shouldn't be too tough to figure out.
Comment by Gretchen — December 29, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Further comments from Ed:
Comment by bj — December 29, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Nonsense. Your right to exercise your religion stops when it impinges on someone else's (including your own child's) rights. That's why the children of Jehova's Witnesses can be given emergency blood transfusions. Just think about it man, if it were just a First Amendment issue, I could teach your children whatever religion I wanted. Or you could sacrifice your newborn to Quetzalcoatl.
Of course, if society decides something is abusive that previously was considered acceptable, it will be considered abuse no matter if some people insist on sticking to the old habits. Segregation was OK in 1960 Alabama, and not in 1970. Were African Americans less sensitive to the violation of their civil rights in 1960 than in 1970? Teacher-administered belt-whippings were OK in much of the Western world and the US in 1906, and now would be reason for immediate teacher dismissal. Are pupils' bottoms more sensitive now?
Comment by Andrea — December 29, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
I was going to post another blog about this, but I'm starting feel like I'm shooting fish in a barrel. Nevertheless, let me put this down here for the record.
If you'll remember, I originally gave Dawkins the Jump The Shark award for this action. I did not do this to mock Dawkins or score some silly little point. I waited for the appropriate moment. I could have awarded Dawkins the JTS when he compared a religious upbringing to child abuse, but I didn't. I could have awarded Dawkins the JTS when he published The God Delusion, but I didn't. I gave him the award when it was truly deserved "“ when he comes out and actually petitions his own government to make a religious upbringing ILLEGALand he is now circulating the petition on his official webpage (BTW, notice his long-awaited official web page is about anti-religious activism and not science).
Here is how someone at Wikipedia defines JTS:
Thus, consider my JTS award a prediction. Wanting to criminalize religious upbringing by supporting such efforts with hateful, pseudoscientific expression (i.e., religion is child abuse), is something that will eventually elicit a "noticeable decline in quality or feel" about Dawkins' works, and too much change "to retain his original charm." You can expect the population of Mel Konner's to begin growing.
This is not a mistake. This is not some act of imprudence born of the heat of the moment. This is a true JTS moment that exposes Dawkins' extremism for all to see and calls his motivations about religion into serious question. Sooner or later, Dawkins will have to explain his reasons for wanting to criminalize taking children to church as he is trying to convert agnostics and religious moderates to his extreme version of atheism. At that point, you'll see the JTS where it won't be an obscure little person like me pointing it out, but it will be someone like H. Allen Orr or Francis Collins, and it won't be on an obscure blog, but in the editorial pages of something like the NYT.
The JTS moment will help bring greater clarity concerning the critics of ID. Notice how Ed clearly stands on principle. He offers a detailed, unequivocal condemnation of Dawkins and his position/activity. In contrast, we can expect those sympathetic with Dawkins authoritarianism to offer brief mealy-mouthed condemnations with some "but" added. Or they may try to spin things and make excuses for Dawkins. They might try to muddy the water and change the topic. Or they may simply come out of that Trojan Horse themselves and start advocating such extremism themselves.
In the end, however, it is Dawkins who has to account for his activity (but let's not forget the other scientists who are signing that petition). He may defend the petition and cement his developing reputation as a extremist with visions of authoritarian-type rule. But he'll probably ignore it as long as he can, and then eventually have to spin things to make it look like he really doesn't agree with the petition he signed and circulated.
But keep your eye on the ball. Some Dawkins' fans are already trying to make this petition sound "out of character" from all his other writings. Don't be distracted by that "“ keep your eye on the logic of his position. If you really believe that religion is like an illegal narcotic, and you really believe that a religious upbringing is child abuse (another illegal activity), his signing of that petition is the next logical step that follows from this position. I blogged about this before the petition came out (actually, I made this point years ago on the ARN forum):
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Ok, please tell us how you would go about limiting or banning this eevil.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Nonsense. Your right to exercise your religion stops when it impinges on someone else's (including your own child's) rights. That's why the children of Jehova's Witnesses can be given emergency blood transfusions. Just think about it man, if it were just a First Amendment issue, I could teach your children whatever religion I wanted.
The First Amendment gives you the right to say what you wish. What we do not need is self-appointed enlightened ones like Dawkins determining which teachings constitute child abuse. Ed Brayton and bj are atheists but believe as I do that invoking government interference is asking for trouble and likely to backfire on those attempting to control others. As bj once commented we need more live and let live from all sides.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 9:29 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
So lets get this straight; if I teach my beliefs as the only correct view of a matter, and that not accepting my view will put the child at risk, I am abusing the child?
Does this apply to scientific beliefs? If I teach my child that evolution is the only correct view of the development of life, and not accepting it could render one 'deluded' and in danger of becoming dangerously religous, am I then too abusing the child? And if so, isn't Dawkins and gang among the most notorious bunch of potential child abusers out there? Have the authorities been notified?
Comment by jhudson — December 29, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Hi Gretchen,
"Can you kindly link to this, please?"
It's one of the top items on his website:
As for child abuse, there exists a large body of professional literature on that topic. Where are the studies that conclude that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse?
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Of course, if society decides something is abusive that previously was considered acceptable, it will be considered abuse no matter if some people insist on sticking to the old habits.
What Dawkins and Andrea want is to have those who think like them become the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable religious teaching. They would not want to put this up for a vote knowing the outcome. Better to work through interest groups able to buy legislative votes and with bureaucrats having no electoral accountabilty.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Speaking of mental anguish and the effect on kids, it would be instructive to point out how Dawkins boasted of the effect of one of his books on kids:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 29, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Hi Andrea,
"Your right to exercise your religion stops when it impinges on someone else's (including your own child's) rights."
Sure. But we aren't talking about Jehova's Witnesses withholding blood transfusion or someone sacrificing newborns to Quetzalcoatl. We're talking about the teaching of a single religious point of view (to quote your own comment), as happens when parents read their kids stories from the Bible or take them to church on Sunday.
If you think these events - or any other that would become illegal if a religious upbringing were outlawed - violates a child's rights, go ahead and make your case.
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
An outragous example of child abuse. Andrea, let's get together on this one and campaign to isolate this abuser before he causes further harm.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Hi Bradford,
A word of correction. I think Ed is a deist, at least in the recent past. I am what you might call a telic agnostic-a searcher. So, I am on this side of the divide. I think that the chances that any of us have it right is not all that high, so humility and respect for the opinion of others is paramount, especially in a country constituted as ours is.
As to Dawkins and this child abuse thing, I can hardly express how goofy I think he is and those who agree with him. It's almost not worth elevating it to the level of discussion. The chances of this kind of thing actually happening are zero. And as Ed has posted, if anybody's beliefs are in danger in an environment suggested by Dawkins where government control is invoked, it's going to be the banning of atheistic teaching, not religion.
Comment by bj — December 29, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
As to Dawkins and this child abuse thing, I can hardly express how goofy I think he is and those who agree with him. It's almost not worth elevating it to the level of discussion. The chances of this kind of thing actually happening are zero. And as Ed has posted, if anybody's beliefs are in danger in an environment suggested by Dawkins where government control is invoked, it's going to be the banning of atheistic teaching, not religion.
I certainly hope you are right about this having no chance of going anywhere but history gives me pause. Look at changes that have occured over the last 55 years. At the begining of that era blacks had to ride in buses, Germany was in the throes of a recovery from a virtually unimaginable nightmare and marriages were between men and women. Great changes can occur for the better as well as for the worse. I just don't think we can assume anything is out of the question when we look back at the last century.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Yeah, I wrote that before I found his post that I linked to right after that. It shouldn't be too tough to figure that out, either.
Comment by macht — December 29, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Just for the record, I am not arguing that all forms of religious education are child abuse. Never have, and barring unforeseen circumstances, never will. (Neither has Dawkins, but that's another story.)
What I am saying is that the reaction that most of you seem to have at hearing Dawkins's argument are simply irrational. We, as a society, already agree that at least some forms of religious education and expression can be child abuse and can (or should) be limited. We do it when we legally enforce medical treatment of children whose parents would refuse it on religious grounds. We do it when we as a society prohibit, limit or simply find morally reprehensible religion-linked practices such as the arranged marriages of pubescent Mormon girls to elderly men (or, for that matter, any form of forced intra-religious marriage), genital mutilation, or the brain-washing associated with certain cults or "Jesus-camp"-style enterprises.
Once we agree on this rather unremarkable (to me, at least) fact, we can stop hiding behind entirely irrelevant platitudes about the First Amendment or some other non-existent, supposed right to educate out children however damn well we please, as if they did not have rights on their own to start with. Then perhaps a rational discussion on where (if anywhere) any limits to religious education should fall can be had that does not involve shrieking against the coming of the Big Bad Atheist Wolf.
Of course, Dawkins will fall close to one extreme in this regard, and the nuns from "The Magdalene Sisters" close to the other. I suspect I will be somewhere close enough to the middle to upset most people here.
Comment by Andrea — December 29, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
No, what we agree on is that certain forms of behavior are child abuse whether applied for religious motivations or not. Withholding life saving treatment from a child is abuse whether it is because one believes blood tranfusions are immoral, or because one think the blood system is tainted by disease.
Dawkins application of 'abuse' is specifically aimed at religious belief itself, and that is why it is not only unconstitutional, but fascistic.
Comment by jhudson — December 29, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Hello Andrea,
I disagre. You are one with the irrational reaction. As a self-declared pro-science advocate, why have you (and Dawkins) abandoned science in order to make this unsubstantiated claim? Where is your scientific definition of "child abuse?" What happened to all that talk about "evidence" and "peer-reviewed papers?" Where is your scientific data? Where is your model? All I see from you is an attempt to blunt the criticisms of Dawkins supported by subjective, armchair philosophy and a few anecdotes and sensational examples. Your case is pure, vacuous rhetoric.
Look, you have abandoned science to make your points, you have no scientific evidence to support your position, and have failed to condemn Dawkins in a manner that is as respectable as Ed Brayton. All that is left is to consider what you wrote over at Ed's site:
Please tell us about how such a ban could be implemented.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Wow Baghdad Bob at it again lol.
Comment by Guts — December 29, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Once we agree on this rather unremarkable (to me, at least) fact, we can stop hiding behind entirely irrelevant platitudes about the First Amendment
That Amendment is foundational to our freedom; including the freedom to practice or not practice the religion of our choice.
or some other non-existent, supposed right to educate out children however damn well we please, as if they did not have rights on their own to start with.
The right to educate our children is called parenting. Most of us go to considerable efforts to ensure that our kids grow up to become healthy, well-adjusted individuals. No government worker or legislator could love or care for my kids more than me and my wife. We have the responsibility of raising them and the freedom to determine what good parenting entails. I and most other commenters want it left like this.
Then perhaps a rational discussion on where (if anywhere) any limits to religious education should fall can be had that does not involve shrieking against the coming of the Big Bad Atheist Wolf.
The de facto clear and present danger standard suffices. If they need a blood transfusion give it. If a 12 year old girl needs protection from molesting, render it. Common sense. There is no need for an extremist wedge strategy. We know Dawkins and his ilk and where they are going with this.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Hi jhudson,
You write: "Dawkins application of 'abuse' is specifically aimed at religious belief itself, and that is why it is not only unconstitutional, but fascistic."
Well stated! Let's also not lose sight of the big picture. Since when has Dawkins ever been an advocate of children's rights or welfare? What has he ever done for children? Does he donate time and money to the victims of real child abuse? He just suddenly became concerned about children at the time he is trying to rid the world of religion.
Dawkins is just hiding his anti-religious bigotry behind the mask of "concern" for children. With Dawkins, the anti-religious theme is the only form of consistency in his life and works.
As for the petition and the fact that his official web site effectively circulates it, this is not a mistake or lapse in judgment. It's part of an Agenda.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Yeah, youknow, dude, ROTFLMAO, knowwhattamean? Arararar.
Oh - wait a minute:
First post in this thread. Read it? Good. Do you understand it, or would you like me to translate it into some simpler form of language more accessible to you?
It certainly would be a major challenge, but I would venture more or less the same way we ban parents from reading pornographic material to children [*], or from locking their children into dark closets for hours as a punishment, or from performing any other sort of abusive behavior that does not leave physical marks. And again, I do not subscribe to it, certainly not to the extent that Dawkins seems to advocate (let alone to the extreme many here seem to fallaciously believe Dawkins advocates).
[* = Note for the mentally obfuscated: I am not claiming that religious education is the same as reading pornographic material to children, just that we already have laws prohibiting all sorts of abusive behaviors against children that cannot be forensically proven, and reading pornography to them is one example. Thanks for your understanding.]
Comment by Andrea — December 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Andrea:
1. Minor children do not have enfranchised rights, and are compelled in this country to obey parents/guardians, attend school 8-10 hours a day from the age of 5 to 16/18, and must petition a court of law for emancipation if they believe such is warranted before they're old enough to have sex with someone 18 or older, vote, or fight a war.
2. Murder, physical abuse, and many kinds of psychological abuse of children by parents/guardians, caregivers or strangers are crimes prosecuted by the state all the time. However, there are exceptions made for certain religious groups on things like medical treatments, usually ruled upon mostly due to relative harmlessness (overall) of the cult/sect, and any outstanding controversy over particular treatments per public health (vaccinations, choice of cancer treatment, blood transfusion versus plasma, etc.).
3. All sorts of religious/anti-religious and otherwise quite bizarre beliefs are on television 24 hours a day, on the internet, in the bookstores, on the magazine racks, and talked about wherever people gather. You cannot effectively insulate a child from any and all influences or ideas you don't like if you live in the real world (as opposed to some cult compound). This is why responsible parents/guardians and elementary educators are expected to teach them how to engage in that "open marketplace of ideas" the framers envisioned when protecting the freedoms enumerated in Amendment #1. Sift the rot from the reason.
I don't understand why you'd want to defend Dawkins' extremism. Here's a guy who insists he's all about Almighty Reason, but he's got nothing but his own bigotry to back this one up. If there is real evidence that religious upbringing in general is child abuse, let's see it. Deal is, he has none.
Social evolution can occur before or after the Law catches up. Laws do not and never were designed to change people, they exist to define a sociopolitical interest, violations of which can be punished. We don't make bigotry illegal (because it's a belief), we make discrimination illegal (because it's an action). A bigot can be punished for beating up a minority person - he can have his freedom taken away and his money/property too. But the law can't make him NOT be a bigot. The best that can happen is for society to make being a bigot socially unacceptable. After a few generations, things get better.
I am not worried that Dawkins' brand of extremism will ever result in repressive laws in this country, because we'd have to have a revolution and institute a whole new form of government first. So he can be the butt of all our jokes here - he has certainly asked for it, so I expect he can handle it. But before you go any further waxing philosophic on this ridiculous idea of his, you should understand that we won't be convinced.
Comment by Joy — December 29, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Andrea:
So what does the government do when such actions are found out?
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Tell you what; Dawkins can raise his one chlild (when he gets around to seeing her) however he wants; if she turns out to be an exemplory citizen whose thinking bears no marks of her father's beliefs, he can lecture the rest of us about how we should raise our children.
Hopefully she will fair better than the children of the last prominent intrusive atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
Comment by jhudson — December 30, 2006 @ 12:02 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:09 am
I am reading Darwinian Fairytales (by the late David Stove — who called himself someone "of no religion") and encountered a couple of statements which seem applicable to this thread:
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is an incitement to crime: that is simply a fact"
(He says this says this in response to how both Marxists and National Socialists used Darwinism to support their ideologies.)
So maybe we better start a petition to outlaw incitements to crime, such as Darwinism.
And get this. He also quotes Richard Dawkins as follows:
"[natural] selection would favor parents who succeeded in manipulating their offspring, over thsoe who did not."
He cites: Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype (Oxford: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1982), page 57.
So now I'm confused. Is it OK with Natural Selection to teach children religious morality — if you're just doing it to manipultate your children — or not???
(David Stove died in 1994. His book Darwinian Fairy Tales has recently been republished. His thesis is that Darwinism could not possibly apply to the human species, even if it might apply to other species. Still, he deals a substantial blow to Darwinism. His book is all the more powerful because of the lack of any possible religious motivation behind it.)
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — December 30, 2006 @ 12:09 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:09 am
For the record, I agree with Ed Brayton. Dawkins' advocacy of that atrocious petition belies an authoritarian tendency that I'd not previously perceived in him. If I doubted that Dawkins favored coersion before, I certainly can see it now.
Comment by Myrmecos — December 30, 2006 @ 12:09 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Andrea:
Andrea, then why are you even participating here? No one here is in a fuss about whether one can teach the bible as literature. We are in a fuss over actual religious upbringing being called child abuse (the raising of a child as a catholic kind of religious upbringing, as if anyone had to explain). You're defending Dawkins (claiming he is not being coercive) on the grounds that he's okay with teaching the bible as literature?
If not, what exactly is your argument because I don't see you making any coherent case at all here. You can keep harping about Dawkins being ok with comparitive literature all you want but it's irrelevant, and you're comming off as somone who is arguing just to argue (as always).
Comment by Guts — December 30, 2006 @ 12:12 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:20 am
[* = Note for the mentally obfuscated: I am not claiming that religious education is the same as reading pornographic material to children, just that we already have laws prohibiting all sorts of abusive behaviors against children that cannot be forensically proven, and reading pornography to them is one example. Thanks for your understanding.]
Andrea, your disclaimer does not ring true. You repeatedly cite obvious, non-controversial examples of abuse to support the use of the term child abuse when relating it to religious teachings. The particular religious teaching that led to all this was teaching about hell. Noone disagrees that abuse exists, but most stand opposed to attempts to extend the concept to encompass teaching about hell or related ideas. The fact that you continue to pursue this, rather than simply acknowledge that Dawkins went way too far, is disturbing.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2006 @ 12:20 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Sorry, I forgot there is only ONE REAL GOD-APPROVED form of religious education, and all others are libur'l scams to pervert the youngsters to the homosexual agenda, or that other "Agenda" (double-scary big A) Mike is so concerned about. Let's be serious. My own kids go to Sunday school, and I am not going to take lessons from you about what is and isn't "actual" religious education.
For emotional/psychological abuse? At the limit, it can step in and suspend or revoke parental rights.
I actually clearly stated that signing that petition was wrong:
but what I am arguing is that the phrasing of that petition, which is clearly extreme, contradicts other explicit statements by Dawkins that are far more nuanced on the subject.
The puzzling thing is that all here seem eager to pursue the issue of the petition, which is clearly crap, and not Dawkins's real arguments, and the actual reasoning behind them. (Ironically, I even openly stated I disagree with Dawkins's arguments myself, but since everyone here is so involved in eagerly beating up a strawman, I am being called a "Dawkins-defender" for the sole reason that I point out the strawman-beating. Go figure.)
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 12:41 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Andrea:
Gee, now look who needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
Andrea:
Thats the problem, you're not making any coherent case. You have yet to provide actual evidence that we have made a strawman. Maybe the case you're making is that Dawkins is schizophrenic (i.e. he signed a petition he completely disagrees with), if you won't provide the psychological study that shows religious upbringing is child abuse, perhaps you have some psychological study that shows Dawkins loves to contradict himself.
Comment by Guts — December 30, 2006 @ 12:48 am
December 30th, 2006 at 1:33 am
A Dawkins defender commented over on ARN that Dawkins' name is on the petition twice*, so we can't be expected to believe he ever really personally signed it in the first place. Which might be a good defense, if he hadn't linked that very petition on his web page.
Oops. Please, somebody get a screenshot of that web page before it's altered.
[* He was the second signatory when I first saw the petition, and appeared only once.]
Thanks and good night.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2006 @ 1:33 am
December 30th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Your point is that religious indoctrination is a form of coercion on children thus should be banned. How about other forms of coercion? Or are you only against certain forms of coercion that you dont agree with and therefore what to coerce others to agree with you?
Seems pretty clear to me that the last thing you are against is coercion of children. Its the coercion of children in a manner that you do not agree with.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 30, 2006 @ 2:50 am
December 30th, 2006 at 2:55 am
And that is Braytons mistake in general. The debate over ID is happening at the individual level. People and their ideas and the truthfulness of ID are the most relevant issues.
How the ID debate prevails in each person's mind is what is relevant. The courtrooms, the school boards, the peer-review committees, Barbara Forrest's books — that is what is ultimately irrelevant, and that is not where the debate is really happening.
What is relevant is whether ID (whether an intelligence made the universe and/or life) is true. Everything else is fluff.
Regarding Dawkins coercion, I think it is testimony to the fact Dawkins is sensing his books, his arguments, are insufficient measures to combat the rising anti-secularist sentiment (not just religious sentiment but even post-modern). Recall how the ID class as Cornell, mostly non-ID students, thought Dawkins writings were a disappointment. The students from America's best schools were dissing Richard Dawkins!
At Dennett's own school, he must surely be alarmed at the large number of Visigoths invading his own house: Study shows religion on the rise among college studentsTufts mirrors national rise in student activities
I should point out a trend that ought to disturb Dawkins: Holland's Post-Secular Future
I think Dawkins realizes he cannot win the culture war by means of rational discourse. He's running out of options. Making religion a crime is the one option he has not pursued until now. I think, he realizes that coercion might be his only recourse.
After all, Daniel Dennett proved that natural selection favors religiously inclined populations. And who is Dawkins to fight the forces of Natural selection? See: Evolution is Cruel to Dawkins and Dennett. Such a highly favored trait as religious inclination cannot possibly be stopped by the writings of the Professor of Public Understanding. No, only steel-toed boots and brass knuckles will work (to quote PZ), if at all.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 30, 2006 @ 2:55 am
December 30th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Mike wrote:
Mike,
It's simply not true that signing the petition is the "next logical step" for someone who believes that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse. Like Dawkins, I long for a world where such indoctrination is a rarity. However, I'm convinced that this goal is best reached through persuasion, not coercion. Dawkins' signing and promoting the petition will contribute nothing to that worthy goal, and may in fact be counterproductive.
Oddly enough, you also contradict yourself by asserting that Dawkins "jumped the shark" when he signed the petition. This undercuts your claim that signing the petition was his "next logical step". After all, how could it be logical for Dawkins to hasten his own "jump the shark" moment?
Comment by keiths — December 30, 2006 @ 5:36 am
December 30th, 2006 at 6:31 am
I agree that it isn't the next logical step. As Andea was saying, society already restricts certain kinds of religious upbringing of children, because it views certain kinds of practices as detrimental to a child's well-being. If one believes that indoctrination of a religious (or atheistic) nature is detrimental to children (as Dawkins obviously thinks), then asking the government to add this restriction only makes practical sense if society as a whole also agrees (assuming a non-totalitarian society). I think Dawkins needs a lot more 'consciousness raising' to occur before that is even remotely possible. Going straight to the government before society's consciousness is raised is inconsistent with what Dawkins claims to want to do in his book.
KC
Comment by KC — December 30, 2006 @ 6:31 am
December 30th, 2006 at 7:19 am
I think being forced to read Richard Dawkins' books and thoughts is a form of adult abuse. Can he be arrested?
Comment by Douglas — December 30, 2006 @ 7:19 am
December 30th, 2006 at 9:53 am
hmmm.
It seems to me that selling the RMNS "explanation" as the sole driver of evolutionary progress to children is essentially an atheist indoctrination.
Comment by MatthewCromer — December 30, 2006 @ 9:53 am
December 30th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Andrea:
Just as we were all able to recognize the existence of the ID Movement, I'm just pointing out the existence of the Anti-Religion Movement. Dawkins has clearly taken on a Philip Johnson-type role in this new movement. Just listen to him talk and check out his web page "“ it's all about socio-political advocacy.
Joy:
When I first saw it, I wondered if it was some troll. But I independently noticed the same two things - he was the second signatory when I first saw the petition, and appeared only once and he prominently links to it on his official web page.
Keiths:
Perhaps you are right and that "logical" is not the right word. But there is clearly some type of mental inertia that is set up when you view the world such that religion is likened to illegal activities. Dawkins is clear about who is trying to persuade "“ other atheists, agnostics, and those who are nominally religious. He is trying to swell the ranks of those who share in his extremism. If he can accomplish that, the socio-political stage is set for such coercion (as Andrea justifies above). Thus, the Jump The Shark moment may also be a jump the gun moment.
Look at it this way. A couple of years back, I noted that Dawkins' abuse rhetoric was such an extreme accusation that it entailed consideration of making such activity illegal. From where I sit, Dawkins' behaved as predicted. My only surprise is that I didn't anticipate his advocacy would be so clumsy.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 10:42 am
December 30th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Dawkins has commented to Ed's blog, saying it was a mistake made by not reading carefully enough.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2006 @ 11:30 am
December 30th, 2006 at 11:32 am
This is actually pretty much true. So much so, in fact, that I don't think even Dawkins would object.
Overall, however, I think Dawkins does a pretty good job distinguishing what is science and what is socio-political advocacy in his writings and words (whether one supports and/or informs the other is obviously a different question). Indeed, it is his opponents who try to conflate the two in an attempt to discredit evolutionary science and assign it metaphysical goals and socio-political Agendas (double-scary big A as well, I guess).
On the other hand, the Johnson-initiated modern ID movement is, with rare exceptions, all about purposefully equivocating between scientific goals (minimal, if any) and socio-political action (their main target). Indeed, that was explicit in Darwin on Trial and in later writings by major ID advocates, until the embarrassment about the leaked Wedge document and backlash against it caused a re-tooling of their rhetoric.
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 11:32 am
December 30th, 2006 at 11:37 am
That seems indeed to be the case, pretty much as predicted. We'll have to see if this satisfies Mike.
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 11:37 am
December 30th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Of course he "regrets it." It will be fun to reply.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 11:46 am
December 30th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Of course, Mike, you are right. This statement must also be part of the Agenda (double-scary big A).
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 11:53 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Andrea:
Well, I predicted an attempted walk-back, and this certainly qualifies. And it's a much better one than some total pretense that it was just a troll using his name. It would also appear that he understands perfectly well that petitions to 10 Downing don't carry any legislative weight (about as useless as petitioning the Queen). So at least my mind is a bit eased that he's not coming down with Mad Cow or something that looks/acts just like it (Alzheimer's).
He probably didn't anticipate the reaction from his Amen choir here in the US, as we are a lot more attached to our liberties and our privacy than Brits are. A legacy from our Enlightened founders that we are thoroughly and coercively indoctrinated to value, from toddlerhood to enfranchisement as adults who can vote and die in dirty little (or big) wars.
We are never likely to tolerate National Nanny - whether it looks like Richard Dawkins or Bess Herself - telling us what activities we can and can't enjoy with our children on our own time. It won't hurt Dawkins a bit to learn to accept that.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
It would, if he had ever argued for the wholesale prohibition of all religious teaching before. But he didn't, and always qualified what he considered abusive about religious indoctrination. Only those who have never bothered actually reading what Dawkins wrote, but loved sounding their alarm bugle about it anyway, could have thought he genuinely supported the content of that petition.
Look, a simple "OK, sorry, we should have wondered about this to start with. Never mind." from you guys would actually be enough. Alas, I don't see it coming.
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Sorry about what, Andrea?
Criticizing an act that the perpetrator retrospectively regrets?
Comment by Pez — December 30, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
What's truly ironic is that without Telic Thoughts, Brayton would probably never have heard of it, and Dawkins would never have been forced to retract his support. Yet if you ask Andrea, we owe someone an apology.
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
LOL, sure, you only meant to politely inform Dawkins he may have made a mistake in signing the petition, right? You could not have raised the issue in more rational tones, for instance writing a post wondering if Dawkins really meant to sign the thing, since it seemed out of place with respect to a number of his other official statements? OK, then, well… if you say so.
Oh wait, you actually didn't even bother looking at his other statements, ignored those who pointed them out to you, and accused them of being complicit in the "Agenda" (double-scary big A).
Talk about touching bottom.
Comment by Andrea — December 30, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Hi Andrea,
"for instance writing a post wondering if Dawkins really meant to sign the thing, since it seemed out of place with respect to a number of his other official statements?"
Actually, as has been pointed out, the petition is perfectly in tune with much of Dawkins' previous writings, in which he compares religion to illegal substances and calls a Catholic upbringing child abuse. Indeed, according to this review, he writes that "we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe in the literal truth of the Bible than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out."
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 3:41 pm