Richard Dawkins and child abuse
by KrauzeSince Richard Dawkins withdrew his support for a petition to make religious upbringing illegal, many are now trying to make it look as if the petition was so out of tune with the rest of Dawkins' writings that only those with an irrational hatred of him could believe that he had truly endorsed it.
PZ Myers, for example, quotes from Dawkins' The God Delusion, where Dawkins voices his support for comparative religion, where children can learn about the "many mutually incompatible belief-systems." But that doesn't say anything about the right of parents to raise their children in a particular religion. And as I previously noted, in Dawkins' so-called retraction, he really only regrets signing the petition because it would have also made comparative religion classes illegal. He nowhere affirmed his support for the legal right of parents to give their children a religious upbringing.
In fact, anyone who has followed Dawkins' public statements on religion would have plenty of reasons to think that he would want religious upbringing made illegal. After all, this is a man that has referred to a Catholic upbringing as causing more harm than sexual abuse at the hands of a priest, and who thinks that merely talking about a "Catholic child" or a "Protestant child" is "a kind of child abuse". And in his newest book, The God Delusion, he repeats psychologist Nicholas Humphrey's demand that we should not "allow parents to teach their children to believe … in the literal truth of the Bible":
My colleague the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey used the "sticks and stones" proverb in introducing his Amnesty Lecture in Oxford in 1997. Humphrey began his lecture by arguing that the proverb is not always true, citing the case of Haitian Voodoo believers who die, apparently from some psychosomatic effect of terror, within days of having a malign "spell" cast upon them. He then asked whether Amnesty International, the beneficiary of the lecture series to which he was contributing, should campaign against hurtful or damaging speeches or publications. His answer was a resounding no to such censorship in general: "Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with." But he then went on to shock his liberal self by advocating one important exception: to argue in favour of censorship for the special case of children … "… moral and religious education, and especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed – even expected – to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas – no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no God-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon." [pp. 325-326; thanks to Stephen E. Jones for finding and transcribing the quote for me.]
Another of those trying to make Dawkins look better is Nick Matzke, who has reposted his correspondence with Dawkins. Matzke explicitly asks him whether he wants to make it illegal for parents to teach their religion to their children. But once again, Dawkins completely evades that issue, instead talking about the "labelling of children":
Of course I don't think it would be a good idea. I am horrified by the thought. My entire campaign against the labelling of children (what the petition called 'defining' children) by the religion of their parents has been a campaign of CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING. I want to educate people so that they flinch when they hear a phrase like 'Catholic child' or 'Muslim child' "“ just as feminists have taught us to wince when we hear 'one man one vote'. But that is consciousness-raising, not legislation. No feminist that I would wish to know ever suggested a legal ban on masculine pronouns. And of course I don't want to make it illegal to use religious labels for children. I want to raise consciousness, so that the phrase 'Christian child' sounds like a fingernail scraping on a blackboard. But if I dislike the use of religious words to label children, I dislike even more the idea that governments should police the words that anybody uses about anything. I don't want a legal ban on the use of words like nigger and yid. I want people to feel ashamed of using them. Similarly, I want people to feel ashamed of using the phrase 'Christian child', but I don't want to make it illegal to use it.
Dawkins' reply doesn't make any sense. If he really thinks that the "labelling of children" is child abuse (an accusation he repeated as late as yesterday), why wouldn't he want the government to stop it? Does he also think that government should stop prosecuting parents who knock their children's teeth out, instead relying on "consciousness-raising" to make people voluntarily stop doing it?
At the very least, this shows Dawkins to be a shallow thinker, who signs petitions and write books without thinking of the implications of his words. At the worst, it suggests that his "retraction" had more to the with political expediency than with personal conviction.
December 31st, 2006 at 11:50 am
Dishonest again, I am afraid:
What Dawkins really says is:
That is, the psychological damage wrought on some children by graphic visions of their own damnation can be significantly greater than the psychological damage other children suffer when they are fondled by a priest. And if we unequivocally call the latter child abuse, though qualified as "mild", so should be the former.
As for Stephen Jones's quotation "skills", alas for him and you the quote continues (in Dawkins's words, not Humphrey's):
and then Dawkins goes on for the entire chapter discussing how obviously hard and problematic it is to integrate a liberal sense of respect for various traditions and cultures with an equally liberal sense of the rights of a child.
Before accusing Dawkins of being a "shallow thinker", I suggest you try to actually figure out what he thinks.
Comment by Andrea — December 31, 2006 @ 11:50 am
December 31st, 2006 at 11:57 am
Hi Andrea,
"That is, the psychological damage wrought on some children by graphic visions of their own damnation can be significantly greater than the psychological damage other children suffer when they are fondled by a priest."
Dawkins isn't talking about "some" children. He writes: "Being taught about hell – being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that – is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse."
"and then Dawkins goes on for the entire chapter discussing how obviously hard and problematic it is to integrate a liberal sense of respect for various traditions and cultures with an equally liberal sense of the rights of a child."
Does he at any point give an unequivocal defense of the legal rights of parents to give heir children a religious upbringing?
And what about "religious labelling as child abuse" Don't you think the government should prevent child abuse?
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 11:57 am
December 31st, 2006 at 12:00 pm
That is, the psychological damage wrought on some children by graphic visions of their own damnation can be significantly greater than the psychological damage other children suffer when they are fondled by a priest. And if we unequivocally call the latter child abuse, though qualified as "mild", so should be the former.
Significantly greater than being sexually molested? This is anectdotal manipulation. It's an attempt to charge the emotional engines of anti-theism in hopes that it will lead to governmental policing efforts. Dawkins is an unabashed extreme ideologue who would be better advised to focus on zoology.
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Krause:
just read and present the quote in context, man. Come on.
Oh, I am sure he is already planning to use the proceedings from The God Delusion to lease a fleet of black helicopters from the Trilateral Commission. In fact, they are after you, man. Run! Ruuuunnnn!!!!
Comment by Andrea — December 31, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Dawkins is too much of a yenta for that kind of action. But just in case I'll dust off an old Rambo movie and take my AK out of storage.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Hi Andrea,
"just read and present the quote in context, man. Come on."
Well, since it's New Years Eve and the libraries aren't open, I can't very much do that. But until then, why not use the opportunity to talk with someone who actually has the book?
So, Dawkins has just quoted Nicholas Humphrey demanding that we make an evangelical Christian upbringing illegal. According to PZ, anyone who knows Dawkins would know how opposed he would be to such a thing. So, does Dawkins go on to stake out a more reasonable position in clear distance from Humphrey? Does he say "government shouldn't stop people from giving their children a religious upbringing" or words to that effect? Or is it just more of his "consciousness-raising"
BTW, you forgot to comment on the doctrine of Hell and "religious labelling" being child abuse.
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Bradford, you can use the bomb shelter I built when the theocratic Christo-Taliban regime came to take me away.
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Notice that Matzke did not send a simple inquiry and did not do so prior to the controversy . He could have simply asked Dawkins why he signed the petition and if he will reaffirm the legal right of parents to indoctrinate their children in their own religion. Instead, Matzke engages in some damage control and effectively coaches Dawkins into the reply he wants.
It is thus interesting to compare Dawkins original apology and its new, evolved form. In this new apology, Dawkins further emphasizes his supposed stupidity. He writes, "if I had read the whole thing more carefully, I would have noticed the coercive phraseology and would not have signed it."
Yet in his original apology, he admits to reading the very part that contains the coercive phraseology. We are asked to believe that Britain's #1 intellectual read "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16" yet didn't notice the word "illegal."
His new apology tries to make it look like Dawkins was only talking about the schools indoctrinating children. Okay, so Dawkins doesn't see the word "illegal" that is there, but does see the word "schools" that isn't there. Oddly enough, the other petition that is signed and circulated by Dawkins is indeed about schools, so I guess Dawkins is about signing and circulating redundant petitions. But wait. Dawkins said, "if"¦I would have noticed the coercive phraseology [I] would not have signed it." So now Dawkins is against the government banning religious indoctrination in schools?
This most significant change is that the new apology omits the reason why Dawkins signed the petition. In his uncoached apology, Dawkins tells us:
So he admits his emotional motivation, where he is passionate about "DEFINING children by the religion of their parents." He signed it with delight because someone else "cared about the defining or labelling of children by the religion of their parents" (as if he stumbled upon the first person who happened to agree with him on this). In his passion to oppose DEFINING children by the religion of their parents, it is not completely insane to believe that Dawkins wanted "to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." After all, he admits not giving this petition any real thought.
Again, because of the equivocal nature of these explanations, and now because of the coaching, it is simply not clear what Dawkins really believes and wants – only Dawkins knows that. So let's deal with some basic issues.
First, when someone signs and circulates a petition, the default assumption is that the person read and understood the petition and is advocating what the petition states. If we were to remove this default assumption, petitions would become meaningless and should be abandoned.
Now, we do know, as fact, that Dawkins signed the petition and his official web page effectively circulates it.
It is a further fact that Dawkins acknowledges he was wrong to sign the petition. It remains to be seen whether he is willing to make this acknowledgement and apology on his own web page, the very page that circulated the petition with his name on it. If I made such a horrific mistake, and used my web page to lead people into harmful political advocacy, I would not bury my apologies on other blogs.
At this point, the fans of Dawkins are busy playing the Dawkins-as-Victim card as Krauze notes. And in doing so, they are trying to make it look like we are the bad guys for pointing out something that Dawkins admits was wrong.
But let's back up a moment. The fans of Dawkins are under the impression that everyone is fan of Dawkins and thus he is entitled to charitable interpretations of his signing that petition (that would also have us assume Dawkins is as dumb as a brick). In other words, Dawkins is supposedly entitled to something that he himself does not give out. For example, consider what Orr wrote:
So while Dawkins feels free to use his large microphone to impute ulterior motives to other scientists, he himself should not be viewed as such. How dare anyone think that Dawkins actually understands what is involved when you sign a political petition!
In the end, Dawkins has made his own bed. He admits that he is now a political activist, busy trying to morph society with his memes. By being so political, it is fair to interpret his actions through the political prism that he embraces. He is not willing to entertain charitable interpretations of any of his opponents. He signed the petition. He linked to it on his official web page. And he acknowledged he was wrong only after Ed Brayton lambasted him.
I think one person who commented on Ed's page said it best:
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Hi Mike,
"We are asked to believe that Britain's #1 intellectual read 'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16' yet didn't notice the word 'illegal.'"
Oh, but Nick has a reply for that too. You see, in the UK, the word "illegal" doesn't mean what it does in the US.
(Que Clinton jokes.)
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Nick is the ID critic's version of Robert Crowther. As a political animal, he is trying to resusitate Dawkins in order to attack us.
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Well, its not changed on his web page. I would like to keep an open mind on it, but so far he's having his cake an eating it too.
If I had to guess, and it is just a speculation, Dawkins would favor whatever would be pragmatic to destroy religion. He's ambivalent to the particulars of the mechanics of how that is achieved. If it is expedient to achieve it through public relations or "consciousness raising" he'll take that, if through more totalitarian means, he'll take that. I can't imagine that he would favor protecting civil liberties over the chance to destroy religion. I could of course be wrong, but only he knows the answer to that.
And speaking of Clinton jokes, it is not a well known fact, Richard Dawkins full legal name is Clinton Richard Dawkins.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 31, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pm
The Humphrey quote is very illuminating. Humphry argues "in favour of censorship for the special case of children "¦ ""¦ moral and religious education, and especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed - even expected – to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong." Does Dawkins criticize or condemn this advocacy of censorship and intrusion into the family?
Keep in mind that Dawkins has been ecstatic about Humphrey's book and advocacy:
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Here is another review of Dawkins' book:
It looks like there is a conspiracy of closet "ID creationists" Out To Get Dawkins.
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Hi Salvador,
"Well, its not changed on his web page. I would like to keep an open mind on it, but so far he's having his cake an eating it too."
As O'Brien said, it's probably maintained by a webmaster who's enjoying the weekend holiday. Let's wait until next week before attaching any significance to it.
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Hey, Krauze, watching the newly formed NCDR (National Center For Dawkins Rationalization) crew chop logic over this has been surreal. First, are we supposed to belief that Dawkins simply couldn't read when he signed that thing? Second, his "retraction" was rather glaring in what it left out. Instead of just retracting the whole thing, why'd he mention specific things (like comparative religion classes – which as Mike points out, weren't mentioned by and wouldn't have been affected by the petition anyways), among which was conspicuously missing, oh, the whole authoritarian attempt to keep parents from raising their own children thing? And the reply to Matzke doesn't even make sense as a reply to questions about the petition he signed, which was about legislation and "indoctrination", not "consciousness-raising". And then there's his whole history of statements like this. The evidence stacked up here is simply mountainous. You might as well deny that the Pope is Catholic.
In any event, I think these guys are just talking to themselves. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would be convinced by this dissembling meltdown.
Comment by Deuce — December 31, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Krauze:
I agree.
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Matzke would make a great journalist: He'd ask Dawkins about his stance on making religious upbringing illegal, hold the microphone while Dawkins talked about how he wants people to flinch when they hear a phrase like 'Catholic child' or 'Muslim child', and then wrap it all up with, "Thank you, Richard. I believe that answers all of the outstanding questions about your committment to religious freedom."
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Unrelated to the whole Dawkins "kerfluffle", but Matzke doesn't know jack squat about Europe. Contrary to his assertions, there is no "culture of moderation" limiting binge drinking among young people. I'm a European myself, and 15 year-olds getting seriously drunk on a regular basis isn't at all uncommon. The statistics are clear:
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 3:18 pm
You have to remember that Matzke is very savvy (consider his official position) and now has experience working with good lawyers as they prepare their witnesses. He clearly took Dawkins by the hand.
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Well gee, I'm so sorry to have spoiled your anti-Dawkins feeding frenzy by my elaborate devious plot to ask Dawkins two direct questions and post his answers. You guys are hopeless.
All of it. I sent him the email cold, received the reply and posted it.
Dawkins said: "Of course I don't think it would be a good idea. I am horrified by the thought." This not ambiguous and not evasion. Furthermore he explicitly said that my guess at what he was actually after in signing that petition (religious indoctrination and labeling by UK government schools, not blocking such in the home or church) was exactly right. And just in case there was any ambiguity left, he also said:
Dawkins can be legitimately criticized for several things, but being an advocate for totalitarianism is not one of them.
Comment by Nick Matzke — December 31, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
You know, I've been thinking. In reflecting on my own religious upbringing in a very lukewarm Christian home (United Methodist, where religion was something one did Sundays before going out to eat), it occurs to me that probably by far most young children would be far more psychologically traumatized by being indoctrinated with the atheistic worldview of Dawkins, et al, than by vague references to a Hell which God did not want them to ever see and from which Jesus' sacrificical death on the cross gives them a simple way to escape. I know it would have been this way for me. When, as a young child, I thought about Hell (very, very infrequently), it never frightened me at all, because the focus was on Jesus and the fact that He had risen from the dead and wanted people to be with Him in Heaven. On the other hand, I know that if I had thought that death was the end, I would have been in despair ("If Daddy or Mommy dies, I'll never see them again; and if I die, I no longer exist").
Comment by Douglas — December 31, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Andrea:
While I am personally very glad I purchased that popcorn stock before the mud-wrestling sideshow, I must say that it looks like there's some shallowness all around in this budding "New Atheism" version of the old atheism where the EA agenda tried to disguise itself as 'reason' or 'rationality' or 'science'.
Dawkins is an extremist who is getting old and realizes he hasn't much time left to remake the world in his own image. He's spent bucks and star-power to set up the PR umbrella, and has spent months organizing operations on two continents. Science doesn't have much to do with the new agenda, other than a simple trade of status as selling point. With the Wedge dead, it's no longer about keeping religion out of US schools. It's about getting rid of religion altogether "by any means necessary" (as PZ frames against Ed, a rather entertaining exchange during the sideshow).
We enjoyed the Ed & PZ Show, but that doesn't mean we weren't aware that it was just distraction. We saw the early attempts to pretend Dawkins' famous name on that petition (#2 signatory) was put there by a 'troll' – to the point that eventually a 'troll' actually did his name in the late list. But with the webmaster unavailable, the link on Dawkins' page couldn't be scrubbed and Dawkins was caught red-handed.
Ed and PZ won't kiss and make up. The PZ/Dawkins BFF act isn't helping Dawkins' image much, since PZ has endorsed the idea of concentration camps and forced sterilization for religious believers. So now we get treated to some hysterical historical revision. That won't work either.
Dawkins' opinions on religion and religious believers are well known and well documented, Andrea. He's the most famous evangelical atheist on the planet. He's written books and books, progressively supplanting the pretense of science with his hatred of all persons not him. He's been publicly calling religious beliefs and upbringing child abuse for awhile, without a single shred of scientific evidence, knowing how society views that charge. All the while, the Amen Choir sings on in adulation.
Those involved in this amazing blow-up were all foolish to follow Dawkins' blind lead in dropping the 'science' pretense at this point. He thinks no one targeted by his nefarious and hateful agenda on either side of the Atlantic will notice that his charges of child abuse are unsupported and in utter defiance of rationality, objective reality, the US Constitution and evolution itself (that which conspired to give humanity a strong spiritual impulse). They apparently believe the macho posturing and double-distraction ploy is effective. It's not.
"Rationalism" and those wondrous Enlightenment Values y'all have claimed as support your anti-religious, anti-democratic agenda belong in truth to us – We the People – and we highly value the liberty and tolerance they have fostered (in fits and starts). Every generation has to deal with its haters and narcissists and wannabe mind-tyrants, but every generation doesn't have to surrender to their propensity for evil.
We won't let Richard Dawkins or any of his blind acolytes take from us what we value most highly, just to comfort unbridled egocentricity on its deathbed. But we won't remove from any of them the right to try, even though they'd abrogate our rights. In the enlightened 'marketplace of ideas', real rationalism predicts faithfully that bad ideas will sink, good ideas will swim. We can live (and die) with that. So can Dawkins and all his friends – they've got no choice.
Comment by Joy — December 31, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Hi Nick,
"Well gee, I'm so sorry to have spoiled your anti-Dawkins feeding frenzy by my elaborate devious plot to ask Dawkins two direct questions and post his answers."
LOL! Don't worry, you didn't spoil anything. Watching Dawkins' evolving explanations has been great fun.
"All of it. I sent him the email cold, received the reply and posted it."
Corrected. Thanks.
"Dawkins said: "Of course I don't think it would be a good idea. I am horrified by the thought." This not ambiguous and not evasion."
I posted the whole things. It's pretty obvious that Dawkins is talking about his anti-labelling consciousness-raising, not whether a religious upbringing should be illegal.
Besides, what kind of person is "horrified by the thought" of government making child abuse illegal?
"Furthermore he explicitly said that my guess at what he was actually after in signing that petition (religious indoctrination and labeling by UK government schools, not blocking such in the home or church) was exactly right."
Notice that you didn't just ask him what his opinion was; you offered him a detailed interpretation and asked if he agreed. Why did you do that?
Dawkins: "I of course assumed that it referred to schools, not parents in the privacy of the home."
Why would Dawkins "of course" assume that the petition referred to schools? It doesn't talk about schools at all.
Comment by Krauze — December 31, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 5:11 pm
[...] From Telic Thoughts Since Richard Dawkins withdrew his support for a petition to make religious upbringing illegal, many are now trying to make it look as if the petition was so out of tune with the rest of Dawkins' writings that only those with an irrational hatred of him could believe that he had truly endorsed it. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Making religion illegal? — December 31, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Nick,
I'm sure Dawkins has libertarian street-creds in all aspects of individual rights"”except parental rights to train their children in their own religion. You should have asked Dawkins a specific question: Do you think it is child abuse for parents to teach their children that a place called hell exists, and that it has been set aside as a prison where the lost will suffer for eternity? This represents both mainstream (though not universal) and official (in the sense of catechism and confessions) Catholic and Protestant teaching. If he thought it was child abuse (as would be consistent with his past writing, not that he seems to rank consistency as highly as expediency) the next question would be: should it be illegal? And if the answer to that was no, then ask him: Well why not? Your questions allowed him to give nebulous answers.
Comment by David Heddle — December 31, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Why would Dawkins "of course" assume that the petition referred to schools? It doesn't talk about schools at all.
Yeah, but if you are aware of the situation with religious education in government schools in the UK, the Protestant versus Catholic fights in Northern Island, and are aware that Dawkins has repeatedly expressed concern about the UK government schools, and that Dawkins signed and promoted another petition on the schools, then you realize that a petition to the British Prime Minister might have been intended at that specific issue rather than a generic blanket call to ban private religion, which would be a fascist position far beyond where Dawkins has ever gone before. I discussed the very different US vs. UK contexts in my post.
Comment by Nick Matzke — December 31, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
David Heddle has phrased the question exactly as it should be put. It should be noted that many, if not most states, have agencies whose concern is the welfare of children. Dealing with child abuse is one of their missions. It is therefore significant how the term is defined. Labeling something child abuse becomes legally significant when government agencies accept it as a working definition.
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 6:49 pm
David,
Your concerns were not my concerns when I sent the email. I think Dawkins's position on whether or not the Christian doctrine of hell equates to child abuse is all too clear. His answer is basically "yes" and he had said so in print several times. Therefore it does not require clarification.
I agree that his position is wrong and overwrought. It opens Dawkins up to the charge that he is a real extremist who wants to ban parental religious instruction of their children, especially when there is apparent confirmation in the form of a petition. Because of this it was important to get him explicitly on the record about whether or not he really does think religious instruction should be banned outright.
Thankfully, Dawkins supports standard religious liberties despite his position on religion equalling child abuse. I agree that this is probably contradictory although this could be a somewhat complex question. I think the fact that Dawkins agrees that parental religious instruction should be legal is yet another reason he should drop the child abuse analogy as unworkable.
If I had wanted to argue with Dawkins over my disagreements with him on the child abuse issue, I would have written a different email. But for what it's worth, I don't think that one more person arguing with him about the child abuse analogy would change his mind — he seems committed to it as part of his "consciousness-raising" strategy. This strategy will probably backfire on him because it is an unreasonable analogy, but that will legitimately be his own problem to deal with.
Comment by Nick Matzke — December 31, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 6:55 pm
No, no, Dave, you don't understand. Those are the kinds of questions you ask when you're trying to wring the truth out of someone. When the truth is already as obvious as the nose on your face, and you're fishing for a strained and spin-doctored non-reply in a desperate attempt to explain it away, so as to cover a huge and obvious gaffe that someone on your "side" committed, and alleviate the liability they present to you, those sorts of questions just won't do. Nick is the expert here, and you should know better than to question his judgement.
Comment by Deuce — December 31, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Nick states:
Actually, we have already seen the first sign of its inevitable backfire. As Brayton notes:
Despite the evolution of his apology, the fact remains that the guy taking the lead in labeling a religious upbringing as child abuse is the same guy who signed a petition to make it illegal to indoctrinate children in the religion of their parents. Except for the die-hard fans of Dawkins, many others will now always have their doubts. Everytime Dawkins talks about child abuse, the petition will come to mind. And if he succeeds in moving the child abuse meme outside of his bubble, the petition will follow him there. It will be interesting to see how well the apology comes off to a much larger audience.
Like I predicted, a true JTS moment.
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 7:46 pm
I'm one of those who can't help but be a tad bit suspicious of the pro-Dawkins spin. Maybe that's just confirmation bias in action, but then again I like PI figures like Dawkins, cause you generally don't have to look very hard to see where they stand. This kind of episode doesn't fit that mold.
So the story is possible. Maybe he saw a lot of petitions in which schools where the issue, and just saw what he wanted to see. But then Nick supplies us with these words from Dawkins:
Now both the reader and the writer (presumably) miss that the language intended or assumed isn't what ended up on the petition in question. Just gets curiouser and curiouser.
And then we have this from a poster on Ed's blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispat...
Well, I have to give them that. During the Dover trial and the hubub about early versions of the Pandas and People book, if I heard one Darwinist, I heard a hundred, say: We can't jump to conclusions. We have to wait several go rounds until we know whether the authors are really creationists or not. We have to be generous.
And we all know that Darwinists are generous to a fault.
Having said all that, if Dawkins wants to clarify his position unambigously, I'm willing to accept it and move on.
As an aside to Nick:
I think, according to the atty representing the Darwinists at the KS hearings where the rest of the crowd were no shows, this isn't true in KS, nor most other states. State curriculums are optional. It may even be a Constitutional requirement in KS, but I can't remember for sure.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 31, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Nick,
It seems you affirm the 1st amendment and other civil liberties of parents to raise their kids up with the values and faith they hold dear. I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on a number of scientific issues, but I can't tell you how much I appreciate you and Ed Brayton sticking up for these basic rights, even if some of us are a real pain in the neck to you and your organization.
Thanks, and happy new year.
Sal
PS
I do agree with the others here you're a fabulous PR guy. Eugenie ought to give you a raise.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 31, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 10:36 pm
I wonder if commenting here at TT is part of Matzke's job or if it's extra-curricular. Personally, I try to do anything but job-related activities when I'm not at work.
Comment by macht — December 31, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 4:42 am
macht wrote:
macht,
Apparently you've never had the privilege of working at a job you were passionate about. When a job lines up well with your personal interests and values, there is less of a need to compartmentalize it and keep it separate from your "real" life. Work becomes its own reward, clock-watching becomes unnecessary, and remuneration is a happy (though still necessary) by-product of following your passions.
I hope you'll someday find a job which rewards you this way.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 4:42 am
January 1st, 2007 at 5:35 am
I rarely look at the clock when I'm at work and I thoroughly enjoy my job. But I do spend enough time at work that I'd rather spend my time away from work pursuing other interests and passions.
Comment by macht — January 1, 2007 @ 5:35 am
January 1st, 2007 at 5:53 am
Nick Matzke wrote:
Nick,
I agree that Dawkins' choice of the phrase "child abuse" is unwise and counter-productive, but I don't think that it contradicts his position on parental rights. There are several reasons why Dawkins could consider religious indoctrination to be child abuse, yet not wish to make it illegal:
1. Child sexual abuse runs the gamut from mild to horrendous. Dawkins describes his own experience of molestation at the hands of a teacher as "embarrassing but otherwise harmless." Yet we as a society unhesitatingly label Dawkins' experience as a case of child abuse. If such an experience merits the label "child abuse", is it so ridiculous to apply it to the experience of being told that someone dear to you, and maybe you yourself, will suffer for eternity in hell?
2. Dawkins' goal is to reduce the incidence of childhood religious indoctrination. Criminalization isn't necessarily the most effective means of accomplishing this. The fight against female genital mutilation is beginning to succeed in Africa, not so much because it has been outlawed in some countries (the laws have been widely ignored), but because of grass-roots efforts to raise awareness of the effects of the practice. A similar approach is more likely to succeed vis-a-vis religious indoctrination, while criminalization would simply engender resistance.
3. The spectre of the government trying to draw, and enforce, a line between allowable non-religious teachings and forbidden religious teachings is frightening. Even with the best of intentions, governments tend to mangle such projects. With the wrong folks in power, as inevitably happens from time to time in a democracy, the line could be redrawn in particularly scary ways. Imagine if the current US administration, for example, had the power to dictate what parents could teach their children.
4. Dawkins' larger project is to get people to think critically and to apply the same standards of reason and evidence to all areas of their lives, including religion. A society in which people accepted Dawkins' ideas merely because the government forced them to would be little better than any other dogmatic regime. Success will come when evidence and reason are universally well-regarded, when children are taught to think critically and not to rely on authority, and when religion is no longer insulated from the kind of logical scrutiny which is applied to other aspects of life.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 5:53 am
January 1st, 2007 at 5:54 am
I wonder if Nick has special rates for emergency PR counseling or if he took on Dawkins pro bono.
Comment by Krauze — January 1, 2007 @ 5:54 am
January 1st, 2007 at 6:31 am
I agree that Dawkins' choice of the phrase "child abuse" is unwise and counter-productive, but I don't think that it contradicts his position on parental rights. There are several reasons why Dawkins could consider religious indoctrination to be child abuse, yet not wish to make it illegal:
There are clear reasons for choosing the term child abuse over a more clinical, more detached description that lends itself to empirical studies. After all Dawkins and his supporters could state that such and such is not in the best interests of a child or that, in their opinion, it engenders the following harmful effects which could be studied and tested for accuracy. But to replace an emotionally loaded phrase like child abuse with this type of clinical language removes a powerful emotional trigger from Dawkins' arsenal. Marketing and sales experts know that persuasion involves appeals to the feelings of the targeted audience. That's exactly what a term like child abuser does. It excites people pro and con. It is the antithesis of rational references to scientific data confirming or debunking an idea. Dawkins writes to market his ideas. Despite his background a more rational and empirical approach to promoting his ideas takes a back seat to the use of powerful, and emotionally provacative phrases.
Comment by Bradford — January 1, 2007 @ 6:31 am
January 1st, 2007 at 6:41 am
Child sexual abuse runs the gamut from mild to horrendous. Dawkins describes his own experience of molestation at the hands of a teacher as "embarrassing but otherwise harmless." Yet we as a society unhesitatingly label Dawkins' experience as a case of child abuse.
This is a curious reaction. If Dawkins was truly molested as a child the perpetrator was a child abuser; Dawkins' mild reaction notwithstanding. In any case the gauge of a wrongful act is not the victim's verbal reaction to it.
Comment by Bradford — January 1, 2007 @ 6:41 am
January 1st, 2007 at 8:12 am
Bradford,
Dawkins' point is not that molestation isn't child abuse; it is, and he labels it "reprehensible." His point is that religious indoctrination sometimes does more damage than sexual abuse, and therefore qualifies as abuse itself.
In The God Delusion, he quotes an American Catholic woman in her forties:
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 8:12 am
January 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
I have often suspected that Dawkins was himself molested by an Anglican priest whuile he was serving as an altar boy. Just a thought.
Comment by John A. Davison — January 1, 2007 @ 11:18 am
January 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
One of the things about the Christian religion is that it teaches you to be more concerned about your own behavior than the behavior of others. Dawkins apparently abandoned this lesson when he abandoned his faith. He needs to begin thinking critically about his own views and behavior. He needs to apply the standards of reason and evidence to his own life.
His failure to do so has him abandoning science to attack religion. As a result of his admitted passion, he committed an act of sheer stupidity and actually signed a horrific political petition. He now has thick layers of egg all over his face and this act has defined him more than he knows. Hopefully, he will learn and begin to introspect, realizing that he needs to start practicing what he preaches. A good first step would be to post his official apology on his official web page and repudiate the attempt to link child abuse with a religious upbringing. There are many Dawkins' sympathizers out there who would applaud this and his stock would rise.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
keiths writes,
Wait wait wait. Where is it stated that Dawkins himself was molested?
The mention in The God Delusion seems to be hypothetical:
That looks like a hypothetical to me.
The idea that molestation is "embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience" may help us understand Dawkins's position but it doesn't help his child abuse=religion claim. At most it shows that he is not very familiar with the hurtfulness of child abuse and therefore doesn't understand what people hear when he says religion is like child abuse. Wouldn't be the first time Dawkins made this sort of mistake…
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 1, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Heck, Mike Gene knows I did this sort of thing for years before I ever worked at NCSE. What can I say? Some people are Trekkies, some collect sparkplugs for fun, and I am a creation/evolution nerd. You might as well do something you're good at.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 1, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
By the way, in what world is my criticizing Dawkins's child abuse = religion claim evidence that I am his PR guy?
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 1, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Nick,
Dawkins provides a little more information from his article in Free Inquiry, Vol. 22, Fall 2002
The book left out the "skin-crawling revulsion."
It is interesting to note that something else happened when he was nine "“ according to another interview, he began to doubt his religion.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
keiths,
In response to your larger comment — that's why I said Dawkins's position on religion being like child abuse, yet not illegal, was "probably contradictory although this could be a somewhat complex question." One can imagine ways Dawkins might rationalize the different legal status of the two things, e.g. religion is just below whatever the lower threshold is for child abuse or something. Or perhaps teaching about hell really is as bad as child abuse, but it is impossible to devise a governmental cure that isn't worse than the disease.
But really none of this works very well. The law regulates actions, not thoughts or speech. Child abuse is an action, teaching about religion is thought/speech. The only solution to "bad speech" that has ever been shown to be workable is more free speech. Furthermore it is extremely clear that people can and do change their minds about religion, in fact I bet on average a substantial proportion of the public (like 50%) makes some kind of significant change in their religious views while they are adults (leaving the church, becoming born again, whatever).
What the child abuse accusation really is, is an attempt to rile up the base and shock the mainstream. It will get news attention for awhile, but it will inevitably backfire, and if Dawkins ever did hire me as a PR guy I would advise him to drop it like a hot potato. If the New Atheists had any sense they would be aiming at attaining the status of Jews or Mormons in the U.S. — a smallish religious minority that the majority of the U.S. disagrees with theologically, but respects for its values, political/social concerns, votes, etc. But instead, they are taking the same route the Christian fundamentalists have taken, and are thus continuing to perpetuate the very political marginalization they complain about.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 1, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Well stated, Nick. In fact, it is now in Dawkins self-interest to drop the child abuse meme like a hot potato. It links him to the petition. The more he pushes the meme, the more likely a larger audience will learn about this.
BTW, if Dawkins did drop the meme, I'd lose about 90% of my interest in his political activity.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Nick:
Indeed. Then you should understand my motivations and love of my hobby. The only difference? You are a PR guy for a political organization. I'm not. I'm not even a member of any organization.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Oh my. I hadn't heard that before.
Yes, and who can blame him. My random thoughts: On the one hand, at least Dawkins is not callously expounding upon child abuse from a completely ignorant perspective. On the other hand, these sorts of events have a tendency to be far more significant than people sometimes think — even than the victims think. Interpreting beyond that would be my own callous exposition I'm afraid.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 1, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Alright, alright, your obsession with my being a PR guy is duly noted. (If you care, it is only true in a very strange way, actually. NCSE is not a normal sort of place and the job titles are somewhat arbitrary. I have no communications training whatsoever, and how many other PR guys have published on flagellum evolution? I am here at TT because it's about the only ID blog where one can actually argue without being banned or overwhelmed by the YECs.)
But hey, if it makes you feel like your arguments are better, by all means, continue.
I will be traveling and offline for awhile. But go USC!
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 1, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Not an obsession; an observation. And Nick, you are always welcome here. Be well in your travels.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Nick Matzke wrote:
Hi Nick,
This sounds like an argument for Dawkins' position that religious teaching should be discouraged through consciousness-raising and not by criminalizing it.
I'm not claiming that noone can overcome religious indoctrination. People can and do. I was one of them. The point is that indoctrination makes people more likely to stick with a religion in adulthood, compared to how likely they would be to choose it if they had not been indoctrinated in the first place, but were simply examining and choosing among belief systems from the perspective of a mature, non-indoctrinated adult.
The statistics are incontrovertible. The children of Christians tend to become Christians. The children of Hindus tend to become Hindus. Even the children of Amish parents tend to become Amish.
These results would be much less striking if the children grew up without indoctrination, and with the expectation that they would be free, and encouraged, to choose their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) at the appropriate time.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Nick wrote:
Hear, hear. Though we disagree on much, I'd like to congratulate the TTers for maintaining a site on which dissent has a place.
The contrast with Uncommon Descent could not be more striking.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 am
keiths:
[sigh] Keith, a lot of us do go looking around. As soon (or sooner) than our parents would have allowed, if they could have controlled our thoughts/beliefs. Which they couldn't.
I am one who came home. I have no problem admitting that 'home' was where I felt most comfortable due to my upbringing, which is the very thing I rebelled against.
Don't belittle or demean me by telling me I'm stupid not to have chosen your path when I went looking. That's complete garbage. I don't see 100% eye-to-eye on a lot of the tenet/dogma stuff. But I learned in the course that these things are a bit less than 'writ in stone' no matter what they tell 'outsiders'. That was kinda neat to figure out, but not neat enough to salvage my tithes to any congregation or denomination. I contribute. Probably more than my share all things tallied, but I'm not keeping score. Neither is the IRS keeping that score, so… you want I should report to you? YOU are gods/God? §;o)
Every kid I've ever known (including me and my several siblings and all my friends in several countries and states growing up) had a "rough childhood." Big damned deal. The 21st Century "Culture of Victimhood" is just so overblown most of the time that it's pure Prozac. Which isn't all that good for you, y'know.
So here I am. It doesn't have much to do with my scientific preferences, or that which I scientifically know. It has a lot to do with my relationships with family, extended family, friends, acquaintances, and public appearances. All of which are far more important in the day-to-day process of me living my life than your opinions about evolution vs. ID could ever be. To me.
It wouldn't hurt any of you to internalize this fact about life on planet earth.
Comment by Joy — January 2, 2007 @ 1:46 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 am
Hi Keiths,
Although we probably agree about very little, I must say that I really admire the way you have carried yourself. It's great to have someone like you commenting here.
Comment by MikeGene — January 2, 2007 @ 2:15 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 am
Joy said:
One wonders how the millions that suffered and died in concentration camps would have felt about people like you comparing their horrible fate to a fascinating evolution class or a vibrant atheist rights seminar favored by an ordinary Minnesota biology professor.
Comment by llewelly — January 2, 2007 @ 3:53 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Nick says:
As there are a lot of Darwinist blogs where IDers and other critics can be banned or overwhelmed. A question that occurs to me, is whether TT, and other moderate forums, are anymore conducive to productive dialogue than the more polarized forums.
I'm not sure they are.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 2, 2007 @ 9:21 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:41 am
I'm pretty sure that's not what Joy was referring to by the statement you quoted. It's her prerogative to do so, but I just wanted to point out that this is a pretty uncharitable way of interpreting what she said.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 2, 2007 @ 10:41 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
thechristiancynic:
"Uncharitable" is par for the course. Watching PZ go off on a fire and brimstone rant about the 'religious problem' can be entertaining, but reading the comments of his amen choir often takes a strong stomach. Camps and sterilization aren't the most radical solutions to the 'religious problem' I've seen coming from Testosterone Acres.
But who takes PZ seriously? He's just the comic relief.
Comment by Joy — January 2, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I guess I must not be as cynical as my screenname might suggest because I think it's pretty sad that we just expect people to be uncharitable to the opposing side.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 2, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
cynic, I think Mike has explained very well the problem of demonization as Consciousness Raising, using propagandist appeals to base emotion. See, what our so-enlightened 'experiment' in democracy was designed to promote is tolerance, not homogeneity. A tolerant society doesn't need to demonize either minority or majority groups, because personal identity is, well, tolerated.
No need to make Muslim girls go bare-headed to school just because wearing a scarf identifies them as Muslim. No need to forbid crosses or stars of David because nobody would think of harming or belittling a Christian or Jewish child just for being Christian or Jewish.
Dawkins says he doesn't want children identified by religion, but many children DO identify religiously. He's aiming for a homogenous culture, which to my mind isn't a whole lot different than dreaming of a homogenous Europe populated by blue-eyed blondes of the Master Race.
By the way, my godparents both had tattoos on their wrists and lost their entire families to the ovens. They also lost their future family, because she was sterilized by Nazis. So I do know what they'd think about the rabid hate-speech and concerted efforts at demonization of people like PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins. My godparents, like my parents, are dead now. I am not. My charge – like theirs – is to never forget. Never Again.
Comment by Joy — January 2, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Don't misunderstand me, Joy; I agree that this 'consciousness-raising' is completely inappropriate and have expressed as much on here. What saddens me is that we come to expect it. I don't disagree with anything you said, and I'm not really sympathizing with those that think our collective consciousness needs to be 'raised' about the evils of religion.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 2, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
January 17th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Religious Indoctrination as Child Abuse?…
One of the more controversial statements made by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion is that raising a young child as Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc., should be considered a form of child abuse……
Trackback by Atheist Revolution — January 17, 2007 @ 7:54 am