The Clueless Authoritarian
by MikeGeneRichard Dawkins has signed a petition seeking to make a religious upbringing illegal and his web page links to the petition. We now clearly see the coercive face of the Anti-Religion Movement.
Given the authoritarian nature of Dawkins and his followers, those of us who value freedom and tolerance should draw on critical thinking and a respect for science as we take a closer look at Dawkins' hateful meme concerning child abuse and religion.
In his anti-religion book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues as follows:
'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.' The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell. (page 318)
The first thing to notice is that Dawkins floats his accusation with an argument that could not be any weaker. He offers only the idea that it is PLAUSIBLE that words COULD HAVE a more long-lasting and damaging effect. Well, sure. Just as it is entirely plausible that deeds could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than words.
Yet note the next sentence. Even though Dawkins has nothing more than plausible "could haves," he admits that he is "persuaded" that teaching about hell is child abuse. Given that Dawkins is supposed to be a hard-headed scientist who demands "evidence," why has he hypocritically abandoned the need for evidence in order to be persuaded? Given the weakness of his argument coupled to the inflammatory and serious nature of his accusation, reason-loving people must reject this nonsense.
The irony here is that while Dawkins makes large sums of money posturing as an Ambassador of Science, he has abandoned science in order to accuse religious parents of being child abusers.
Dawkins is apparently oblivious to the fact he is making a testable claim about empirical reality. If teaching the doctrine of Hell is "more damaging" than physically abusing a child, Dawkins should have good scientific evidence for this claim. Does he not know about the extensive scientific literature that explores the damaging effects of physical abuse? Does he consult it? And where is his scientific evidence about the damaging effects of the Hell doctrine?
Here, let me teach Dawkins how do to some science. He'll first want to flesh out the ways we can scientifically detect whether damage has occurred. For starters, has the scientist seen this review?
Childhood maltreatment strongly predicts poor psychiatric and physical health outcomes in adulthood. This overview of the literature shows that individuals who suffer abuse, neglect, or serious family dysfunction as children are more likely to be depressed, to experience other types of psychiatric illness, to have more physical symptoms (both medically explained and unexplained), and to engage in more health-risk behaviors than their nonabused counterparts. (Arnow BA. 2004. Relationships between childhood maltreatment, adult health and psychiatric outcomes, and medical utilization. J Clin Psychiatry. 65 Suppl 12:10-5.)
If Dawkins's hypothesis is correct, we would predict, controlling for all other variables, that people who were brought up in a household where the Hell doctrine was taught were more likely to "to be depressed, to experience other types of psychiatric illness, to have more physical symptoms (both medically explained and unexplained), and to engage in more health-risk behaviors" than those raised in a household where the teaching was not taught. So why is it that scientist Richard Dawkins does not provide the evidence and the studies? And anecdotes from his fans, along with sensational news stories, don't count as scientific evidence. But it gets more interesting.
Not only does the Ambassador of Science abandon science to make his accusations about religious parents (evidence of his bigotry), he ignores the contrary evidence.
Consider this scientific study for starters:
Religiosity and the socioemotional adjustment of adolescent mothers and their children.Carothers SS, Borkowski JG, Lefever JB, Whitman TL.
J Fam Psychol. 2005 Jun;19(2):263-75.This study assessed the impact of religiosity on the socioemotional and behavioral outcomes of 91 adolescent mothers and their offspring over 10 years. Religiosity was defined as involvement in church and contact with and dependence on church officials and members. Mothers classified as high in religious involvement had significantly higher self-esteem and lower depression scores, exhibited less child abuse potential, and had higher occupational and educational attainment than mothers classified as low in religious involvement; differences remained when multiple factors, such as stress and grandmother support, were held constant. Children with more religious mothers had fewer internalizing and externalizing problems at 10 years of age, with maternal adjustment mediating this relationship. Religiosity, through increased social support, served as a protective factor for teenaged mothers and their children.
Hmmm. Mothers classified as high in religious involvement exhibiting less child abuse potential also becomes mothers classified as low in religious involvement exhibiting more child abuse potential. It doesn't quite match Dawkins' blusterous rhetoric, now does it?
December 17th, 2006 at 7:58 am
One more thing Dawkins, as a scientist, has failed to consider, and that is whether or not the doctrine of an eternal Hell is true or not. Note that he nowhere addresses this very important and relevant issue.
Comment by Douglas — December 17, 2006 @ 7:58 am
December 17th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Christian Smith found massive evidence that spirituality (predominantly Christian leads to more positive life outcomes. More of that evidence that Dawkins must ignore–unless by child abuse, he means something that leads to a socially and emotionally stronger and healthier life for the child.
Comment by TomG — December 17, 2006 @ 9:30 am
December 17th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Hi Mike,
I think Dawkins is making a huge mistake by signing and supporting this petition. It's one thing to call for "consciousness-raising" about the effects of religious indoctrination, but quite another to get the government involved in dictating what parents can and cannot teach their children.
First of all, by taking this position, Dawkins will scare off people who might otherwise have considered what he has to say on the larger question of the rationality of religion as it is widely practiced.
Secondly, such a policy puts way too much power in the hands of the government. The last thing we want is a political environment in which the folks in power at any given time feel it's their prerogative, or even their duty, to circumscribe what can be taught to children.
Third, coercion would engender widespread civil disobedience in the population, and would only invigorate, rather than attenuate, religious activity. Sunday school would go underground. Parents would teach their kids at home, and the kids would have the burden of hiding that fact from their peers and teachers at school.
Having said all that, I would nevertheless dispute your claim that Dawkins is being unreasonable by asserting the immorality of teaching kids about hell.
It's wrong to create gratuitous fear in a child, whether or not there are any long-term effects. And we do have evidence of fear's negative effects on children, whether or not such studies have been done on hell doctrine specifically.
Comment by keiths — December 17, 2006 @ 10:07 am
December 17th, 2006 at 10:36 am
keiths,
As a comment on this, I would point out that by far most typical, Evangelical Christians do not pound the doctrine of Hell into their children. If typical Sunday School for children materials were considered, it would become obvious that by far the greatest emphasis is on Jesus: His power, love, forgiving nature, and especially His love for children. In fact, being raised in a United Methodist home growing up, I don't recall any lesson focusing on Hell when I was a child. So, even in this sense, Dawkins distorts the truth.
Comment by Douglas — December 17, 2006 @ 10:36 am
December 17th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Proof positive, if needed that Dawkins and his foetid cronies are one brown shirt away from showing their true fascistic nature.
Comment by tenstrings — December 17, 2006 @ 10:41 am
December 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Hey keiths,
I do sense some movement in your attitude toward Dawkins. We have been trying to make the point that he is a profoundly flawed human being in some of his attitudes. I think you are getting a greater sense of this. It's not about his atheism, it's about him-something else apart from his atheism. With this distortion, he would be dangerous as a preacher or practitioner of any metaphysics, for he would call for coercive action against any of the unworthys from beliefs apart from his own.
He is dangerous for atheistic believers, because he more than perpetuates stereotypes of the evil atheist lurking at every corner to destroy religious belief. Thoughtful atheists should consider thrashing him publicly at every opportunity. If you are seen to be defending him in any way, you are hurting yourself. You should understand that he is far more dangerous to the practice of atheism than he is religion. In fact, he is a gift to religion.
There are a few of us, live and let live types, left in America. We are going to oppose a Dawkins as vigorously as we will a Falwell, maybe more so. If you side with Dawkins, you are inviting the opposition of our kind also.
Comment by bj — December 17, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
At least the petition provides a nice definitive list of brits who hate religion and want to see it destroyed.
Have these people considered what the radical islamists in England are going to do to them if they try this sort of stupidity ?
Christians would probably just mostly violate the law and take the consquences. Islamists are unlikely to play that game.
Comment by thesciphishow — December 17, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
If one is to focus on religion in general and not just the "hell doctrine," which I can not remember being taught a specific class on in church before 16 (or even after 16 for that matter — must've been so traumatic that my unconscious suppressed it), then …
Dawkins could just be taken to task on his own scientific, logical, and "reasonable" grounds. Basically, inconsistent = necessarily false (if my recollection of logic class is correct) and consistent = (at least) possibly true
If religion is thriving then it must have been selected by natural selection. If it was selected by natural selection it must help us propogate our selfish genes. This is at least true — look at Catholic overall reproductive rate.
So, religion was obviously created and is being used by the selfish gene in order to propogate itself. If it is the case that our only moral obligation is to our selfish genes (which doesn't tell us why we should be moral in the first place — why not REBEL AGAINST EVOLUTION; we are encouraged to rebel against everything else), then we should all do what is necessary to propogate our selfish genes. Anything done to oppose that creed would be immoral.
I have more to say on the subject (as I'm sure everyone does) but I don't want to bog down this thread with too lengthy a comment. I'll probably extend this thought on my own blog. (BTW I'm new to the blog scene … is it appropriate to "advertise" like this for my own blog?)
Comment by CJYman — December 17, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Hi CJYman,
I see this is your first comment. Welcome to Telic Thoughts.
"BTW I'm new to the blog scene "¦ is it appropriate to "advertise" like this for my own blog?"
Sure. It's obviously relevant to the topic at hand.
Comment by Krauze — December 17, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Douglas wrote:
Hi Douglas,
I think we've had this argument before, but it remains true that belief in hell is prevalent and rising, and not only among evangelicals:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=1855
bj wrote:
This is not the first time I've criticized Dawkins, and I doubt it will be the last. I rarely find myself in complete agreement with anyone. I just think it's a shame that Dawkins blunts his gifts as a thinker and communicator by making these ill-considered, impolitic moves.
CJYman wrote:
CJYman,
You're making the common error of confusing the descriptive with the normative. Selfish gene theory describes how replicators come to dominate a population. It says nothing about whether they should, and whether we as their vehicles should abet or forestall this process.
As Dawkins himself wrote:
Comment by keiths — December 17, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
keiths:
Given that neither I nor anyone else I've ever known who was raised Christian have suffered psychological damage from the concept of hell (much less damage enough to qualify as child abuse), I'd have to see some actual evidence and analysis before I'd believe it. All Dawkins has is his emotion-packed bigotry and hyperbolic assertions.
Cause-effect, life-death, deeds and punishment/reward. These are concepts so completely vital to human psychology that they will never go away just because Richard Dawkins doesn't like the applications. Maybe he's actually frightened by the notion of judgment (the basis of heaven/hell doctrines), and this accounts for the unbridled emotion. It might also help to explain his refusal to temper his condemnation for religious people who are NOT Christian. Most have beliefs about the core concept, reflected in the various versions of Karma.
Richard Dawkins hasn't *done* any science for decades. He has written and published a lot of popular books and essays, steadily and increasingly substituting his own personal philosophy for the science. He reaches a lot of people who will believe anything he has to say about anything *is* science. That's his job, and he's running short of time.
I am encouraged by the apparent situation that his peers are beginning to perceive the danger he represents to science. I have said for years that while it's easy to classify the radical Christian rhetoric as reactionary, it's not so easy to classify the radical atheist rhetoric that drives the reaction.
Dueling metaphysics is a bigger threat to science than religion. It's about time science woke up to that fact, because it has much more to lose than religion does.
Comment by Joy — December 17, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Right, I remember being taught about it, and in my mind I put it in the same category as being told not to talk to strangers because there are bad people in the world. When I was taught about hell as a child , I felt no fear because I was also told plainly and simply how to avoid it. And in both cases I trusted that the advice would work.
The issue is , why is Dawkins persuaded with little to no scientific evidence for and evidence against the assertion that this is child abuse. That seems to go against everything that he actually preaches. The most likely explanation is that he is not pro-science, he is anti-religion.
Comment by Guts — December 17, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Joy wrote:
You need look no further than Martin Luther for an example of an adult who was tormented by a fear of hell.
But I'll say it again, with emphasis: It's wrong to create gratuitous fear in a child, whether or not there are long-term effects.
Comment by keiths — December 17, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Hi Keiths,
Your opinion is noted. But discussions of morality typically go round-and-round and rarely go anywhere, especially when different belief systems are involved. Several people have given you first-hand information that their childhood was not negatively impacted by learning about hell. I myself cannot weigh in, as I was raised in a secular environment. The largest moment of "gratuitous fear" I experienced is still etched in my mind "“ the day my mother and father almost got a divorce. Which leads me to point out that while your concern for the children is tied up with unsubstantiated claims, why not first deal with the real-world things that do, in fact, harm children? As it stands, your concern for the children does not come across as sincere.
For some reason, I'm reminded of Dawkins defending science against relative non-threats while ignoring the animal rights activists that terrorize his own university and colleagues.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Here's a thought. Which one is more wrong?
Parents who want to teach their children the teachings of Jesus (which include teachings about hell).
Scientists who want the government to make such teaching illegal.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Yeah. Every criminal you'll ever meet had a "rough childhood" too. It's mostly a cop-out from people too immature to take responsibility for their own actions (or just seeking to avoid punishment for their crimes).
You'll find that the most rabid haters were haters before they ever found God – or rejected God. Malignant narcissists gravitate toward the pastimes that promise them the most power over others. Traditionally, that comes dressed as politics, religion, and science. More well-adjusted narcissists tend to go into pastimes that promise the most direct personal ego gratification – like show biz and the arts. Dawkins has created himself a whole new niche.
Are you a child psychologist? Have you worked extensively with children who have been seriously abused? Let's see some credentials and some peer reviewed research. Your feelings don't count.
Are you a parent? If so, how many children have you raised to adulthood? The list of 'frightening' consequences of innocent actions is quite lengthy. I know, I know. You use the qualifier "gratuitous" applied to beliefs in a final, ultimate judgement on our lives and actions that most humans share but you feel are scary.
Dawkins is never going to have the power to force humanity to dance to his malignant, narcissistic tune. Science depends on government for its funding, supplied by regular people out in the real world who do real work and have real families and beliefs they aren't going to surrender to a megalomaniacal madman for whom others exist only to exalt him and bow to his desires. Governments rise and fall by the will of those same regular people.
Why do so many wannabe smart scientistic types indulge in this sort of blind stupidity? I swear sometimes I scratch my head wondering if Dawkins' game isn't the destruction of science after all. Which would make his amen choir nothing but a gaggle of dupes. He could go out having the last laugh after all, but it won't be the 5.9+ billion spiritually inclined humans on this planet who will suffer the most damaging consequences of his practical joke.
Comment by Joy — December 18, 2006 @ 12:23 am
December 18th, 2006 at 1:32 am
I love this. The phrases are colorful and the thoughts hit the bullseye.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 1:32 am
December 18th, 2006 at 2:24 am
Guts wrote:
Hi Guts,
Unfortunately, many children aren't blessed with your credulity. In my case I wavered between belief and doubt. Since I had been taught that salvation depended entirely on faith at the moment of death, my great fear was that I would die during one of my unbelieving moments and be sent straight to hell. I vividly remember lying in bed at night, questioning whether my belief was sincere, trying to will myself into certainty so that I could allow myself to sleep in peace.
When I saw the documentary Jesus Camp, I really empathized with one of the kids. He addresses a gathering, admitting that he finds it hard to believe in God sometimes. "Sometimes I don't even believe what the Bible says," he confesses. "It makes me a faker. It makes me feel guilty."
He feels guilty and ashamed, yet he's the one kid who's sensible enough to ask questions and not assume the truth of what the adults in his life are feeding him. Kids shouldn't have to feel this sort of guilt, or fear eternal punishment in hell, simply because they're skeptical of what their parents and peers accept unquestioningly.
I found this portion of Jesus Camp on YouTube. The boy I'm referring to appears at time 6:35 or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kwsv3fSGbs
Comment by keiths — December 18, 2006 @ 2:24 am
December 18th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Mike wrote:
It depends on the aspect of morality under discussion. Some norms are controversial, while others are common to nearly every moral system. I'm surprised that we disagree on this particular issue. Do you really believe it's right to instill gratuitous fears in children?
If so, why? Is it okay generally, or only under the rubric of religion?
I offer myself, Luther, several of my friends, and probably even the kid in Jesus Camp (see my comment to Guts above) as counterexamples. Kids who are secure in their faith, like Guts apparently was, may not be affected the same way. (Though I know folks who fell into this category as children, yet were very disturbed at the idea that their non-believing or apostate friends and loved ones might spend eternity in hell).
Have you had the experience of trying to will yourself into believing something against contrary evidence, thinking that your (eternal) life depended on it? It's scary, it's painful, and I wouldn't wish it on any child, even if he or she managed to shrug it off with no permanent effects.
Then you've misread me. And your accusation sounds a bit hollow, given that you apparently think it's okay to subject children to gratuitous fears about their eternal fate.
Both are wrong, and I would be happy to live in a society where neither was common.
Comment by keiths — December 18, 2006 @ 4:12 am
December 18th, 2006 at 5:00 am
I know it's been said already, but we have to keep reminding ourselves that the fundamental issue is whether or not hell exists. Set aside the issue of child abuse for now: telling children that there is a danger of hell when it doesn't exist is stupid. Telling children that there is no danger of hell when it does exist is even more stupid. So I'd have thought that at the heart of this debate ought to be a serious attempt to investigate this issue by the best brains available … and I guess an evaluation of the evidence that there might be a designer could well be part of this.
The darwinist approach – which seems to be something along the lines of "we think we can just about still get away without there needing to be a god – we don't think we've exhausted the probabilistic resources yet …" – strikes me as a little escapist in this context.
Martin Luther's fear of hell only lasted whilst he wasn't sure whether he was justified, didn't it? Once he got hold of the idea that "The just shall live by faith", I don't think he lived in fear of hell any more. And I don't think you can really argue that a man who faced down arguably the most powerful institution in history and founded protestantism was too crippled by the "child abuse" that he suffered.
In fact, there seems to be a link between "genius" and "grief" (depression) – see this book.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — December 18, 2006 @ 5:00 am
December 18th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Just a point: As a Christian, I wouldn't use Martin Luther as a shining example of a follower of Christ. He was rabidly anti-Semitic, and quite willing to persecute those who did not share his faith (particularly the Jews), and even to allow the persecution of the poor who might want to throw off feudal shackles.
At least, so I've read.
Comment by Douglas — December 18, 2006 @ 5:36 am
December 18th, 2006 at 7:46 am
It depends on the aspect of morality under discussion. Some norms are controversial, while others are common to nearly every moral system. I'm surprised that we disagree on this particular issue. Do you really believe it's right to instill gratuitous fears in children?There are some ways parents should not express their views but your lack of belief in something does not make it gratuitous. I had an opposite experience growing up in a home where atheism was the pervasive and coercive influence. Secular values were instilled as they are in society today. There is arrogance inherent in the belief that your view of reality rules. I'm pro-choice in the matter of allowing people to choose what they wish to believe and wary of those who use "consciousness raising" to impose their views on other adults.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 7:46 am
December 18th, 2006 at 7:50 am
As a child, I remember being scared of massive overpopulation and polution. In fact, I remember a children program (!) describing a future in which the water was so poluted that your bones would be brittle and frequently break when you were at the playground. And that you shouldn't cry, because your tears would be dirty and give you a black face that lasted for days. That freaked me out.
Comment by Krauze — December 18, 2006 @ 7:50 am
December 18th, 2006 at 9:02 am
CJYman wrote:
So, religion was obviously created and is being used by the selfish gene in order to propogate itself. If it is the case that our only moral obligation is to our selfish genes (which doesn't tell us why we should be moral in the first place "” why not REBEL AGAINST EVOLUTION; we are encouraged to rebel against everything else), then we should all do what is necessary to propogate our selfish genes. Anything done to oppose that creed would be immoral.
My apologies for not being more clear that I was being facetious. I thought I was being clear regarding this when stating in parenthesis: "which doesn't tell us why we should be moral in the first place "” why not REBEL AGAINST EVOLUTION; we are encouraged to rebel against everything else."
Secondly, my point was to show that in accordance with a previous statement by Richard Dawkins, he is being completely inconsistent in attacking religion. But then I noticed I hadn't included the relevant quotes. Here is is:
"You are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life" (Bass, 1990, p. 60). And, Dawkins has admitted, he is gratified that in reading his book, people are "losing religious faith" (Bass, 1990, p. 60). According to Dawkins, "religion is very largely an enemy of truth" (Bass, 1990, p. 87). He has characterized the idea that God was created by man as a "blasphemy" that atheists "have to fight against" (as quoted in Watson, 1987, p. 11).
So, as I had stated last post, if religion helps spread the selfish gene then it will be preserved via natural selection. It does help spread the "selfish gene" — look at the Catholic reproductive rate which is in direct correlation with their religious doctrine. Furthermore religion has been selected by natural selection — it is a very strong force and has existed for quite some time. Then, if spreading our selfish gene's are our only purpose, then morality "should be" (according to the Dawkin's worldview) gauged by whatever allows our selfish gened to spread. So, for Dawkin's to attack religion is only inconsistent with his own worldview. (more on that coming to my blog very very soon)
Which of course begs the question of where does purpose come from and why should we be moral, and what is the necessary link between morality and purpose?
In the end this just goes to show the uselessness and inconsistency in Dawkin's inane worldview.
Additionally, I am honestly confused as to why Dawkins cares so much about this natural-selection created concept of Truth and why, if there is no real purpose and the human race dies out with the universe and he ceases to exist after life, does he give a [beep] as to what others choose to do and believe? Doesn't he realize that evolution has done just fine for bilions of years without intelligent (or not-so-intelligent) guidance such as his? And why would he care if it stopped anyway. Does he have some type of "control complex?" or maybe he's just scared that there really is a hell and doesn't want to go alone or what? Seriously now …
Comment by CJYman — December 18, 2006 @ 9:02 am
December 18th, 2006 at 11:45 am
I think Groggs has an absolutely essential point. I mean, think of all the dangers we warn our children about – not talking to strangers for instance. Yes, the knowledge of these things may make a child more frightened, but in the presence of very real danger fear is an asset. It's bad parenting to not teach a child to respond appropriately to serious threats.
Now, granted I find many formulations of the doctrine of Hell horrific, and incredible, not least the standard evangelical one. But I do believe Hell – divine condemnation for those who have spat in the face of God and man, where the justice we have longed for on Earth will be accomplished once and for all – is quite real. As such, I will indeed warn my children to examine how they live their lives and what they are ultimately pursuing, lest they in the end warrant such judgment. This warning includes the admonishment that we often seriously overestimate the goodness of our own hearts, and the need for God to help.
But say I find someone who believes in an eternal torture chamber that one is sentenced to by default if in the wrong denominational club. Shall I forbid them from warning their children not to go to the wrong denominational club, lest they go to Hell? I think their belief is wrong, but I certainly do not fault them, given their belief, for attempting to warn their children away from danger. The right course of action is to attempt to show by reason (and scripture) that their belief is wrong. The wrong course of action is to expect them to go against their best judgment and be bad parents.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 18, 2006 @ 11:45 am
December 18th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I like the term "malignant narcissist" used by Joy to describe Dawkins. Fundamentally, is he a scientist? No. Is he an atheist? No. What is he? A malignant narcissist. For the sake of all: theists, atheists, scientists, non-scientists, everyone; all malignant narcissists should be identified and marginalized via public opinion. Wouldn't that be a wise move?
Comment by bj — December 18, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I wrote:
You need look no further than Martin Luther for an example of an adult who was tormented by a fear of hell.
Joy responded:
I see. So any adult who suffers the aftereffects of hell doctrine is simply "immature". Do you apply the same reasoning to people who were physically abused as children, or who suffered through their parents' divorce? Not all children have lingering negative effects from these experiences. Does this mean that the ones who do are simply "immature"
I wrote:
But I'll say it again, with emphasis: It's wrong to create gratuitous fear in a child, whether or not there are long-term effects.
Joy:
Your demand for evidence is amusing, given your track record of refusing to provide it in support of your own assertions.
Let's apply your own standards to this paragraph: Are you a psychologist? Have you worked extensively with clinically diagnosed narcissists? Let's see some credentials and some peer reviewed research. Your feelings don't count. LOL.
Your paragraph is pure histrionics. What is your evidence that Dawkins is megalomaniacal? a madman? That he thinks others exist only to exalt him?
I suspect that the problem is that Dawkins feels that his confrontational approach is the only truly honest one, and that a "friendlier" approach would somehow be dishonest and watered-down. He is right to be wary of this, but I think there are ways he could tone down the approach without compromising the integrity of the message.
Comment by keiths — December 18, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
bj wrote:
Not if "malignant" is defined as "disagrees with Joy", and "narcissist" means "someone who is willing to defend his views via logic and evidence."
Comment by keiths — December 18, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Wonders for Oyarsa wrote:
Remove the words "and scripture" from that paragraph, and I agree with you almost entirely.
Comment by keiths — December 18, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Good. When you get over it provide some evidence to substantiate the claim that teaching about hell has had the ramifications mentioned.
Or disagreeing with your assertions about what is gratuitous?
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Bradford wrote:
Fear and distress are the ramifications. Are you really asserting that no child experiences these emotions at the thought that he, or someone he loves, might spend eternity in hell? Is it that hard to understand?
Joy used the term "malignant narcissist", not me.
Comment by keiths — December 18, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Hi keiths,
I still do like that term "malignant narcissist" in reference to Dawkins. Maybe, I should give him a little more time and rope. I would suspect this; if you shared his beliefs with most Americans, he would be viewed as dangerous to civil society. I am particularly concerned about the petition that he signed. How can you not view it as recommending that the government outlaw religious instruction of children. Honestly, I don't care about his atheism, but I think he is just a little touched in the head.
Comment by bj — December 18, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
bj:
Dawkins is an interesting case study if nothing else. The internal contradictions between his beliefs and his actions are enough to marginalize his message, for people who are smart enough to notice the disconnect. He thinks nobody's that smart (because his amen choir is certainly not), but he's wrong. Pride makes him blind to the inherent error that the targets of his hatred can see so clearly.
Richard Dawkins' belief system does not support the pretense that he is free to choose his words and deeds. In the gospel he preaches he has no mind and no freedom of will, thus nothing of value to say or do. The hatred he spews is just something that serves to make him seem more 'important' to himself. An illusion he indulges because it serves his ego.
He doesn't really believe anything he says or does will ever make a difference in the world. Why should I?
Comment by Joy — December 18, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Would it be any different from saying to the child, "Your mommy/daddy no longer exists, you'll never see them again…. take care.".
In regards to hell, even Billy Graham changed his views on what hell actually entailed. No longer in the presence of God – not necessarily burning for eternity in actual flames getting poked by demons. But I shouldn't be too confident. I'm a Christian and I too have problems with that idea, keiths.
Back when I was in high school a friend of mine brought me to his church. He was non-demoninational/evangelical and I was a nominal/indifferent Catholic. They had a play that his church was doing called "Gates of Heaven/Fires of Hell".
It was pretty disturbing. It had alittle girl and her mom driving in a car having a discussion about the mom not being a Christian and not attending church. The little girl was a Christian who was trying to convince her mom that she should become one too.
The mom was considerate to the pleas of her daughter but said that she hasn't had the time to look into the church to see what she needed to do to become a Christian. Then they both get in a fatal car accident.
They are then transported to some afterlife. Both are confused as to where they are…. then these demons come running onto the stage and yank the mom away from the crying and begging daughter. With the screams of the mom being heard as she is dragged off stage.
After that the girl is just sobbing on the stage. An angel descends from the rafters and explains to the girl what happened, "your mom didn't accept Jesus…. she's in hell now…. you won't see her again".
In the play the girl completely forgot about her mom walked away with the angel & seemed quite content.
Yeah, I can't deny it. That's pretty messed up and manipulative.
Comment by Doug — December 18, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I could plug in many different childhood experiences and cite some undocumented references or personal subjective feelings and build a case on it. The point is if you or Dawkins wish to advance an agenda or even an argument you need to come up with something more substantial than emotional appeals without studies to back them up.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I find it distasteful, but manipulative? Again, only if its not true. If it is true, than its no more manipulative that your standard high school presentation warning against the effects of drugs and drunk driving.
What I'm saying is that people often mistake this type of scare evangelism for manipulation and control, when it really is an earnest attempt to try to help people avoid a perceived danger to their lives.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 18, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Perhaps, to balance things out a bit, I, too, find the kind of scene that Doug mentioned as disgusting, even if true, which I doubt. But, does anyone recommend that the government come in and ban it? That is the question of this thread as apparently some would.
Comment by bj — December 18, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Good point. I don't personally care for the approach, but it's not so much a matter of what I personally care for.
bj:
Good point as well. I wouldn't advocate it from being banned.
I'm a Christian…. became one back in 2004.
Comment by Doug — December 18, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I'm with you on this bj. The government is not a hammer to be pulled out of the tool chest whenever an interest group gets bugged about something.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Hey, Bradford,
This kind of gets to one of my central concerns. We differ as to worldviews, but neither of us wish for some kind of orthodoxy to be imposed by government fiat. Some in the country seem to want that-on both sides of the aisle. I am hoping that as time goes by, we can somehow reinvigorate the promise of the founders regarding the promise of a land where people could come and believe as they wish while respecting the rights of others to their beliefs. You see I really think that Dawkins is simply anti-American.
Comment by bj — December 18, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
You're right on all counts bj. Freedom to think as we wish and allow others to do the same is a central part of our heritage. Dawkins' control streak runs counter to the values of his own (UK) culture.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Keiths:
It's clear to me that Dawkins never managed to get past adolescence in his grasp of spiritual concepts., because the grasp of spiritual concepts he advertises is consistent with that level of understanding. He knows what he's 'against', but it bears little resemblance to understanding what he's 'against'. It's all very superficial – has no depth.
Depth comes from examining the theology behind the concepts, maybe even looking farther afield to examine similar concepts in other traditions. Dawkins' hatred is equal opportunity – all people of faith are his targets, not just Catholics or evangelicals. Understanding only comes when the nature of forgiveness becomes known.
My parents divorced when I was 15. The youngest of us was 5. All I asked when Mom informed me as she dropped me off at school was, "what took you so long?" Divorce is a serious social issue, but it's not child abuse. Heck, my kids came home one day asking their father and I where we went wrong. All through school they were the only kids they knew who didn't have a weekend family that bought them lots of stuff and let 'em get away with anything they wanted. They thought until they matured that they were terribly abused by this situation, but they weren't.
Children tend to adjust, and take advantage of the situations they're presented with, even if that's just bragging about a weekend family that buys them lots of stuff to kids who still live with both their parents.
And yes I have worked with abused children. Some of the realities would curl your hair (if you've got any), or at least make you painfully aware of the depths of depravity human beings are capable of visiting on innocents. I have raised 6 kids to adulthood who had either been "thrown away" or didn't have anyone at all who cared. Some did fine, a couple died along the way (including one of my own), and some are still struggling to overcome what really does amount to a "rough childhood."
I have found that it's pretty much all about the inner strength and level of maturity of the person. Some have it, some don't. Yet it's not difficult to find stories about people who suffered abject poverty, alcoholic and/or abusive parents or other awful injustices in childhood who grew up to be fine, upstanding citizens and inspirations to all who knew them. Because lasting damage comes attached to the psyche of the individual, blanket generalizations are not reliable.
I have seen the effects of real child abuse and I've dealt with the psychology of abusers. Religion is not a causal factor, though it can be used for self-justification (as can many other ideas/beliefs). Richard Dawkins is an abuser of others. I don't buy his self-justifications either. I see no good reason anyone else would buy his illogic, but there's just no accounting for some people.
My opinions need no evidence, and neither do yours. But child abuse is a real problem here in the real world, and I do have some experience with it. So long as you believe you have the authority to abuse the rights of thousands of millions of people based on your feelings rather than any empirical evidence, I'll have to think of you the same way I think of Dawkins and Falwell and others of their ilk – wannabe mind-tyrant.
I've known more than a few narcissists, including several malignant ones. Their M-O isn't difficult to see, nor are the results of their unbridled will to power. My opinion of Richard Dawkins is that he's immature and so stuck on himself that others exist only in an abstract way, for the purpose of aggrandizing his ego. I got that opinion by reading his own words. Maybe he's just a pathological liar and doesn't mean any of it, but that's a whole different can of worms.
As opinion, there is no evidential requirement. Though there's plenty since his words were not written to me, but to the general public. You can read them to. Your opinion is obviously different, but that doesn't make mine 'wrong'.
What integrity? Look, we can all see that you respect the man and echo his opinions. I have pointed to the fact that ~95+% of humans do not think he's very impressive and don't share his opinions. These 95+% are the very people he seeks to disenfranchise from basic human rights, so on an objective scale, confrontation isn't going to change a thing. Ever. Maybe he's not bright enough to understand that either, so his acolytes sure aren't likely to.
Tough titty – reality in the real world where ALL of us live. He obviously can't come to rational terms with that reality and probably never will (given that he's now in his mid-60s). Maybe someday you will.
Comment by Joy — December 18, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
bj:
LOL!!! Well, I think there's a lot to say per the American Spirit about the fact that the UK still maintains a state religion, even though its non-Christian minorities aren't nearly as minority as they are here in America. There are fine reasons for keeping religious indoctrination out of public schools. Better reasons than there are for banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarfs or Jewish boys from wearing scullcaps, or anyone from wearing a necklace.
I mean, if the point of social education is to promote a tolerant, multicultural population, education must be tolerant of a multicultural population. Or does that make too much sense? §;o)
Comment by Joy — December 18, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Joy wrote:
Could you be more specific? What are a few examples of Dawkins' "adolescent" spiritual concepts?
Who said it was child abuse?
Great, but who asked that question?
Some kids are more resilient than others. Should they all be subjected to fear and suffering simply because some of them can withstand it? Do you think suffering is a suitable punishment for those who are, in your words, "immature" and unable to bounce back from these setbacks?
That would be a devastating rejoinder if I had, at any time, claimed to have the authority to abuse the rights of anyone, much less "thousands of millions of people."
Joy, serious question: why can't you honestly engage my arguments, rather than inventing strawmen to go after?
It's really not that difficult. When you find yourself disagreeing with someone, just pause and ask, "What position am I disagreeing with? Does the person I'm debating actually hold that position, or am I imputing it to him? Where does he lay out that position? Have I misinterpreted his words, or allowed my emotions to unduly influence my interpretation?"
So when I say that I've known people who were harmed by hell doctrine, you demand my credentials and ask for peer-reviewed studies. Yet when you say you've known malignant narcissists, that evidently equips you to diagnose Dawkins as one and to pontificate at length on his purported psychopathology. Credentials and peer-reviewed studies are suddenly no longer an issue.
Second serious question: Do you recognize how often you employ a double standard in your arguments?
I do respect him, but given that I disagree with him on the very subject of this thread, I am hardly echoing his opinions.
Tell that to the people who voted him Britain's top public intellectual.
Also, consider that there are 44 posts in the 'Richard Dawkins' category on this blog, as opposed to only 50 for 'Front-Loading.' People here, even if they disagree with him, recognize his importance and influence.
Comment by keiths — December 18, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
So when I say that I've known people who were harmed by hell doctrine, you demand my credentials and ask for peer-reviewed studies. Yet when you say you've known malignant narcissists, that evidently equips you to diagnose Dawkins as one and to pontificate at length on his purported psychopathology. Credentials and peer-reviewed studies are suddenly no longer an issue.
There is one big difference between opinions about Dawkins and opinions about your allegations. Dawkins is a very visible public figure whose views and personality lend themselves to evaluation. Anyone who chooses can come up with solid reasons to support an opinion about the man based on facts. His views and statements are ubiquitous.
Your statement about the reaction of children is difficult to assess based on facts alone. It did not apply to any of my kids nor to any of my nieces or nephews. I come from a large family and cannot recall any of my relatives making this type of complaint. This does not invalidate your opinion but it puts it on a different factual plane than views about Dawkins.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Keiths:
I completely disagree. Another example in addition to the one I gave above, is when I was told never to cross the street because a car might hit me. Imagine the pain and anguish and fear that you and Dawkins would logically expect a child might feel when warned of such a thing, but because I was told simply and plainly how to avoid it, I was not afraid.
And neither were my friends from the neighborhood who weren't allowed to cross the street either, and never did. We would play everyday in front of our apartment building under the watchful eye of our parent's unemployed friends lol. So I would say most children are credulous because their minds are like sponges, it's nothing rare, like a blessing. At least thats how I see it. But thats just an aside, as you grow older you learn to question things and you learn the benefits of being rational. Which leads me again to say where is Dawkins's scientific evidence? And if he has none, then does he believe it by faith?
Damn I used to go to a camp like that but I was like 13 years old. It was very much like that. Although I enjoyed a lot of the preaching and singing and the plays it was really just about hooking up, lol.
By the way many evangelicals don't believe in a literal lake of fire but that "the wages of sin is death".
Comment by Guts — December 18, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
Are you really telling me that you find it difficult to comprehend, or believe, that there are kids who find the idea of hell frightening? That there are believing kids who worry about whether they truly qualify for heaven? That no kid feels a sense of despair at the thought that a close friend or relative might spend eternity in unimaginable torment?
Why have fire-and-brimstone preachers been so effective over the years if the idea of hell doesn't frighten people?
Comment by keiths — December 19, 2006 @ 7:52 am
December 19th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Guts wrote:
Guts,
The reason you didn't worry about cars was because
1) you had been told how to keep yourself safe,
2) you believed the advice, and
3) you had no doubts about your ability to carry out the advice.
Presumably the same was true for your attitude toward hell. There are others who don't have as easy a time with conditions #2 and #3 as you did.
For instance, when I was a kid, I knew that my friends' churches had different ideas about what got you into heaven. What if they were right, and my church was wrong? How could you [i]really[/i] be sure?
Conversely, what if my church was right, theirs were wrong, and [i]they[/i] were all going to hell?
What about my best friend in sixth grade who was an atheist? I remember trying to convert him so he wouldn't suffer for eternity. (Incidentally, he's now a Christian, and I'm an atheist).
Comment by keiths — December 19, 2006 @ 8:15 am
December 19th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
keiths:
You're attempting to derail the discussion, but this one is easy enough. The idea that deeds have consequences is one of the oldest on the planet. It's an extension of simple observation of cause and effect, combined with a strange (and experientially unexplainable) ability to imagine perfect justice. The juvenile condemnation of the heaven/hell duality as "child abuse" – an allegation Dawkins has publicly lodged – displays no real understanding of the judgment concept, and zero grasp of the mysteries of forgiveness, mercy or grace.
All of these concepts loom large in Christian theology. Someone whose ego had not rebelled at the concept of judgment would have encountered them. He would also, had he not shut his mind (if he had one) off completely, have been informed that hell is reserved for those who are old enough and intellectually able enough to know the dichotomy of good and evil – that darned tree, remember? Innocents are not subject to this judgment.
So while some sects and cults may abuse the concepts for their own authoritarian ends, orthodox theology does not. This is why you have people here who were raised Christian telling you they weren't turned into babbling psychotics just by learning about judgment in church or in school, where human judgment (criminal laws and state punishment – including the death penalty) are taught.
Of course, once you're all the way to blind hatred enlightenment usually doesn't come sans divine intervention. Sometimes that happens. Usually the hater dies hating, and hardly anybody in the real world cares.
Your precise words (copy-paste) were:
Do you apply the same reasoning to people who were physically abused as children, or who suffered through their parents' divorce?
If you had not meant to include the second clause in your first sentence, you should have made two sentences. I cannot read your mind. I can only read the words you type. But on this, I have experience as well. As does at least half the population (if their parents bothered to marry in the first place). It doesn't qualify as child abuse either, so I'm glad you're not suggesting we make divorce illegal in spite of all the "suffering" of children you claim.
I asked if Dawkins had worked with abused children, so as to lend some credibility of actual experience to his assertion about religious upbringing as child abuse. You are defending his assertion, so the question applies also to you as his echo chamber. I think y'all should have at least some basic grasp of the charge you're making before you make it.
Just lodged my own experience as counterweight, because I have some. Credibility on an issue of whether or not a normal upbringing amounts to "child abuse" is highly pertinent.
"Fear and suffering?" You have been informed by several people here who were raised Christian and whose friends and siblings and children were raised Christian, that "fear and suffering" upon learning this concept are not a big issue. It was apparently a big issue of fear and suffering for you, and that's a shame. But it's not a good reason to remove basic rights from billions of people.
Are you still afraid? Do you still suffer from the thought that evil deeds might be punished? Is that what motivates your assertions?
Au, contraire. I have said he might just be a pathological liar. Or he might be a scam artist. I've even said he may have carved out a whole new niche. But my opinion is that he's a narcissist with greater access to power than most run-of-the mill egotists. And he's not afraid to use it against the vast majority of humans, for whom he has oft expressed hatred and disdain.
Take your pick, or form an opinion of your own. No skin off my teeth.
Meanwhile, Dawkins has made a public assertion that religious upbringing is equivalent to serious criminal behavior. This requires empirical evidence, and he has provided none. You support his assertion, yet you offer no evidence either. This unacceptable pig cannot be expected by any reasonable person to fly. I must suspect Dawkins is just playing head games, but he might just be a lot dumber than he looks.
For myself, I find Dawkins to be a bottomless fount of high satire with a real talent for irony. I do not consider him dangerous, and suspect that he'll do more to drain the festering cyst of authoritarianism on all sides of the metaphysical duels than he wanted to. Who complains about the comic relief?
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
This is a good point, but the rabbit has him beat… by a hare…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 19, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
keiths, there's another aspect of this that you might ought to consider, since you're defending Dawkins' radical views with what you say was your own awful 'suffering' from the abuse of having learned about judgment (but none of the attendent concepts) when you were a child.
Point of fact: Dawkins isn't just targeting Christians. He's targeting every spiritual belief system on the planet. It wouldn't be just Anglicans and Catholics and Baptists and Presbyterians who aren't allowed to teach their faith to their children, it's everyone. To include Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, New Agers, Nativists, etc., etc., etc.
Did you do any looking around at other faiths before deciding to be an atheist? I did. I already knew a bit about Judaism because my godparents were Jews and I've many Jewish friends. Have a brother-in-law who's a Sikh, another who is an atheist, and there's some Pagans, a couple of New Agers and three nativists (one is bear tribe), all mixed in. We get along fine.
Have you ever encountered the concept of Karma? What do you think of the idea that your evil deeds in this life will determine your conditions in the next, wherein you will be made to suffer what seems like grotesque injustice for deeds done by someone else in some other life that you don't remember at all?
Do you think Muslims will be happy with laws against teaching their faith to their children? How about Sikhs? And all those Hindus from India and Pakistan that Britain imports to do the kind of honest work that Brits think they're too good to do?
Let's go ahead and broaden the scope beyond your personal oversensitivity to Christian doctrine as a child, to all the other children in all those other families who would be affected by Dawkins' hateful pogroms.
Do you think it will also be illegal in his dream world for atheist parents to tell their children there's nothing to any of it?
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Yeah I had a friend as well that I tried to convert desperately, he was a Jehovah's Witness and I was an evangelical Christian. At times I did wonder if it was he that was right and it was I that was wrong. I went to my pastor about it and he told me it may not really matter in the long run, as long as he accepts Jesus. That made me feel a whole lot better.
Anyway, these anecdotes are a waste of time (relative to the point of this thread), what we need is the scientific evidence. It doesn't seem to be forthcomming from the (pseudo)skeptics.
Comment by Guts — December 19, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Guts,
The Jesus that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. Their Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel – they do not believe that Jesus is God, the second Person of the Trinity. They do not believe that Jesus is God. This screws up their whole theology, pretty much (I can go into exquisite detail, if you like). It sounds as though your pastor really didn't/doesn't understand what he believes, or why.
Comment by Douglas — December 19, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Yeah my pastor wasn't very cerebral, he wasn't into apologetics at all, and he was more moderate than the typical evangelical (or maybe he simply wasn't educated enough).
Comment by Guts — December 19, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Guts,
In a technical sense the pastor was correct. It is a saving faith in Christ that is required for salvation, and that faith is a gift (Eph. 2:8). Precisely because God can present this gift to whomever he likes, we can have hope that infants murdered in the womb, or who die in infancy, or persons who are mentally handicapped might be saved even though they do not understand (in the sense we think of understanding) or have the ability to articulate their faith in any manner. Passing a theology exam is not required for salvation.
However, scripture is also clear that, in a normative sense, believers should grow in their faith and in their ability to express and defend it"”and since it also clear that we are to judge, the pastor should have advised you to persist in witnessing to the JW.
Comment by David Heddle — December 19, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Wonders:
Best comment of the month.
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Aw, shucks. To think that lil' ol' me me just gave Britain's top public intellectual a public smackdown. Then again, what are we to think of an intellectual who wants to be called a Bright?
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Not to worry Mike: Dawkins' foundation is researching the biological causes of unreason. You won't suffer from it forever – one day they will have a cure and you too will be bright.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 19, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
These concepts are part of the culture at large and not specific to Christian theology. Besides, Dawkins and I were both raised as Christians. I suspect that he, like I, understands perfectly well the Christian spin on these ideas. We just find it unconvincing.
That may be your opinion, but it is certainly not universal among Christians. And Dawkins' rejection of Christianity was precipitated by an opening of his mind, not a shutting.
Straw man. I've never claimed that learning about hell, much less state punishment, turns everyone into "babbling psychotics." You really can't help yourself, can you, Joy? Everything your opponents say gets magnified and distorted in a hideous way to save you the trouble of coming up with a rational response.
You really have trouble believing that those who disagree with you may in fact be doing so for perfectly rational, non-malignant reasons, don't you?
No. Even as a child, I wasn't worried about being punished for evil deeds. I was worried about being sent to hell permanently if I died in a state of insufficient belief.
Of course. Don't forget, I oppose Dawkins on this point. I will not sign an equivalent petition if it is introduced in the United States.
Yes. Religion isn't something you can just casually toss away. My "conversion" to atheism took place gradually over a period of years. During that time, I looked into all of the major religious traditions, and quite a few minor ones.
I don't see convincing evidence for an afterlife or for reincarnation, so I think karma is a fiction. I would guess that the concept of karma persists because a) life is clearly unjust, and it's comforting to believe that injustices this time around will be redressed in a future life; and b) in a social system as appallingly unjust as the Hindu caste system, the doctrine was a useful way of explaining and justifying the inequality.
Of course not.
Pogroms? Joy, do you really think hysteria is an effective rhetorical tool?
Yes. I've heard him state that atheist indoctrination is just as wrong as religious indoctrination. The point is not to force his beliefs on children, as you seem to think, but rather to let them make up their own minds when they are mature enough to do so.
Comment by keiths — December 19, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Bradford,
Are you really telling me that you find it difficult to comprehend, or believe, that there are kids who find the idea of hell frightening? That there are believing kids who worry about whether they truly qualify for heaven? That no kid feels a sense of despair at the thought that a close friend or relative might spend eternity in unimaginable torment?
All this is conceivable but so are many other things that, when targeted selectively, reveal a crusading attitude on the part of complainers that I am not comfortable with. I grew up in a home dominated by an atheist parent who advocated many politically correct ideas way in advance of his time. His hostility toward people who practiced religion was monumental as was the adverse impact this had on his family. I have stories of my own from a perspective opposite of yours. I rarely express them, particularly to atheists, because they engender useless conflict. I've come to realize that intolerant control freaks, be they of a particular religion or atheist in their views are a real problem. Dawkins would be best advised to clean up the dirt in his own personal life and get out of the business of trying to eradicate views he does not like.
Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
keiths,
As an atheist myself, I'm sympathetic to your argument – but your opponents have a good point here. In the absence of solid epidemiological evidence that teaching the Hell doctrine to kids results in measurable psychopathology, it seems premature to consider banning it. And given the fairly convincing evidence that moderate religion has beneficial psychological and social effects overall, the idea of completely banning the teaching of all religious concepts to kids is downright absurd.
To be honest, although I don't believe, I'm glad I live in a society (Australia) where most people are at least nominally religious, and where the dominant religion is moderate Christianity. Religion provides many people who might otherwise be unable to regulate themselves with solid rules for living well, and a system of metaphysical carrots and sticks to enforce those rules. In addition, it provides community and support to people who need it – almost every charitable organisation here is Christian, for instance. And since mainstream Christianity here is extremely moderate, no-one will ever interfere with my right not to believe, or to raise my (hypothetical) children without belief. Unlike Dawkins, I'm inclined to return the favour.
Comment by Mesk — December 19, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Hi Mesk,
I guess you didn't read the whole thread. I oppose Dawkins on this particular issue. I don't think coercion is the right solution, and I definitely don't want the government dictating what parents can teach their children. That's a recipe for disaster on many levels.
Despite disagreeing with him, my point in this thread has been to defend him from the the over-the-top caricaturing and vilification that others have directed at him, and to support his thesis that hell doctrine does in fact inflict senseless fear and suffering on some children (as it did on me).
That's the popular perception, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If it were true, then secularization would tend to correlate with higher crime rates. It does so neither among states in the U.S. nor among the nations of the world. Also, atheists are vastly underrepresented in the U.S. prison population relative to their prevalence among the public.
That's an important point. Religious institutions serve more than one function in society, so other institutions will have to take up the slack in areas such as charity if religion declines in importance.
Dawkins faults religious moderates for "enabling" extremists by treating faith as a virtue. There's truth to that charge, but the solution is not to antagonize moderates by trying to mandate what they can teach to their children.
Comment by keiths — December 19, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
keiths:
It's fine with me that you are unconvinced. There are a good many concepts in the craft closet of humanity's twisted psyche that I find unconvincing too. The issue is that he makes a spectacle of himself with all this ridiculous posing and posturing, pretending that he can police other people's lives and minds.
So he says. I don't believe him, but that's no big deal.
If your religious upbringing didn't cause you serious psychological harm, then your parents aren't guilty of abusing you by exposing you to religious concepts. This is not very difficult to grasp.
Richard Dawkins makes no secret of the fact that he wants to criminalize any and all religious belief and practice. I think it's all an act. This silly wannabe mind-tyrant is just a jester. Comic relief.
Well, you obviously got over your concern, choosing freely for yourself not to believe at all. The abuse couldn't have been too bad.
I doubt there's a single sane American citizen who is worried that such a petition would be used for anything but recycled toilet paper or a headline under "News of the Weird" in the weekly entertainment rag. It's just another dog and pony show. Glad to see that you're smarter than Dawkins (for whatever that's worth, which in my opinion isn't much).
How nice. No one is trying to abrogate your freedom not to believe, though I hope you learned something useful from the effort.
Strangely enough, Christianity has always affirmed this idea too. It's called "confirmation," and is a rite of puberty. Perhaps puberty is a bit early as an "age of consent," but it does follow tradition held over from an age when pubescent kids were expected to get real jobs, marry and start producing children.
We don't consider 13 year olds to be adults these days. Of course, average life expectancy is greater than 30 in the modern world too (in his milieu, Jesus was old enough to be a grandfather when he started preaching). But kids tend to make their own choices when they feel ready to do so regardless of what parents think, or what parents teach them.
I honestly don't have a problem with atheist parents teaching their children not to believe. Their kids will rebel just as often as everyone else's, and make their own choices just as you and I did. Looks like Dawkins disagrees with me on this one too. Why am I not surprised? §;o)
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Having mingled with the FreeThinkers, many will say the same in a candid moment. Why? They know that people who beileve in God punishing evil will have an inclination to behave even when men cannot enforce moral codes. Hence, in many situations these atheists would feel safer to be in the presence of such people (Christians) who hold such "superstitions".
What these atheists lament is feeling like social outcasts. These atheists do fear the militant variety of folk who claim to be Christians, but they feel quite at home with those with a reputation for kindness and charity.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 20, 2006 @ 1:05 am
December 20th, 2006 at 1:26 am
Sure, but you have still spent considerable effort defending the notion that the Hell concept is child abuse. My point is that this argument requires empirical support, which has been completely lacking so far (i.e. I haven't seen any actual data raised by either Dawkins or you). Without actual data, this whole conversation is pointless.
But without actual data, it's just argument by anecdote. On both sides.
Well, I've found it pretty hard to get reliable statistics on this, since pretty much everyone who discusses it has some sort of ideological axe to grind, and it is a difficult question to answer epidemiologically in any case. Studies comparing US states or nations (such as the recent study by Paul) are methodologically dubious, as it's impossible to correct for major confounding factors, and don't really address the important individual-level questions (see this critique). With respect to the prison statistics – do you have a particular study in mind? Two major confounding factors that spring to mind are IQ and socioeconomic status, both of which are negatively correlated with religious belief, as well as with criminality. Were these factors corrected for in the studies in question?
My opinions on this matter are still definitely open, since I haven't read enough to draw firm conclusions. But as the rhetorical question goes: If you were walking down a dark alley late at night, and a group of adolescent males left a building and started walking along behind you, would you feel safer knowing they'd just left a Bible study class?
Comment by Mesk — December 20, 2006 @ 1:26 am
December 20th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Hi Keiths,
I thought I would just let this thread go for awhile and then come back. Now that people have exchanged anecdotes and discussed their moral positions, have you changed anyone's mind or reached any consensus?
The only consensus that seems to exist is the point of my blog – Dawkins has no evidence to support his contention that teaching about Hell is child abuse. Remember that the next time he preaches about science and evidence.
I'm sorry keiths, but I'm more focused on the fact that a leading critic of ID abandons science and evidence because he wants to make it illegal for parents to take their children to church.
You write:
In other words, an extremist faults moderates because they enable other extremists. That's hilarious.
Comment by MikeGene — December 20, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
A few brief comments while I take a break from work.
I wrote:
"I've heard [Dawkins] state that atheist indoctrination is just as wrong as religious indoctrination. The point is not to force his beliefs on children, as you seem to think, but rather to let them make up their own minds when they are mature enough to do so."
Joy responded:
Confirmation is the exact antithesis of what Dawkins is talking about. If you're the child of Missouri Synod Lutherans, you're expected to attend Lutheran confirmation classes, study Luther's catechism, attend Lutheran church services and write reports on Lutheran sermons. If other religions are mentioned at all, it's only to point out where they're "wrong", or to advise students on how to proselytize adherents of those faiths. The confirmation ceremony, which takes place in a Lutheran church, includes an avowal of Lutheran beliefs and the confirmant's first Lutheran communion. If the child eventually rejects Lutheran beliefs, he or she is publicly excommunicated. Meanwhile, the child is living at home, totally dependent on the same Lutheran parents who have been taking him or her to Sunday school and church all these years. With all of these pressures to become Lutheran, and none to become Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, or atheist, is it any surprise that so few rebel?
Dawkins' ideal is a world in which there is no expectation that a child will adopt the religion (or atheism) of his or her parents (or vote the way they do, for that matter). Instead, he or she should be free to evaluate the options and choose.
In one of his talks Dawkins mentioned a news story about a boy who actually chose not to be confirmed, and was forced by the local priest to write an essay laying out his reasons for rejecting the faith. The very fact that this made the newspapers shows how rare it is for a child to be aware of the alternatives and courageous enough to take a stand. It also highlights the hypocrisy of requiring a child to justify the rejection of his parents' faith, but not of all the other faiths he was simultaneously rejecting.
Mesk wrote:
As compared to an atheist study class? No, I'd feel about the same either way, depending on the denomination of the Bible students (some denominations are pretty scary
).
Of course, neither group would be nearly as scary as a group of gang members or drunken teenagers (most of whom, given the demographics, are likely to have come from Christian homes).
Mike wrote:
The extremists Dawkins is talking about are of the kind that fly airplanes into buildings, whip people for trimming their beards, or put people on the rack for rejecting the Trinity.
I'll post more tonight or tomorrow on the the recurring question of evidence for the harmful effects of hell doctrine on children.
Comment by keiths — December 20, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Hi Keiths,
"The extremists Dawkins is talking about are of the kind that fly airplanes into buildings, whip people for trimming their beards, or put people on the rack for rejecting the Trinity."
But Mesk was talking about moderate Christians. Are you saying that extremist Christians do the above things? Or that moderate Christians make it hard to criticize Sharia laws and suicide bombers?
Comment by Krauze — December 20, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Hi Krauze,
Dawkins is saying that those moderate Christians who use blind faith (defined as belief in something without evidence or reason) to justify their beliefs forfeit the ability to criticize extremists on the basis of reason or evidence. After all, if no evidence is needed for the moderate beliefs, the extremist can ask why he is required to supply it for his own beliefs.
I think that Dawkins is correct about this, but I think his approach to the problem is wrong. Outlawing religious training for children would only antagonize believers of all stripes (and many non-believers).
A better approach is to enlist the help of moderate, tolerant people everywhere to curb the influence of extremists, and where possible to persuade the extremists to moderate their views.
A nice side effect of analyzing others' beliefs is that it can stimulate you to examine your own beliefs from a fresh perspective. I had a very smart Mormon friend when I was thirteen or so (the first Mormon I had ever met). He and I would argue endlessly about religion (I was attending confirmation class at the time), with the goal of converting each other. Neither of us succeeded, but I do credit our discussions with making me see my own beliefs from his outsider perspective, and for making me realize that if I wanted to be intellectually honest with myself, I needed to confront my own beliefs with the same arguments I used to undermine his.
Comment by keiths — December 20, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
keiths:
I'm sure quite a few 13-year old kids go through confirmation in their parents' faith, then get to high school and decide to go elsewhere or reject it all. Thus in no way does the rite of confirmation bind a teen – or future adult – to any particular denomination or congregation. And teens can skip confirmation with no consequences, though it may strain the home environment for awhile.
See, it's a full-fledged choice thing in our society – no one outside Cult-World is FORCED, by parents or preachers, to belong to any church, they are not prevented from leaving the church, and churches have absolutely no legal authority to take money from anybody. And once a person reaches 18, they can walk away from their parents' home and influence forever, and there's not a damned thing parents can do about it. Sooner if the kid can get a lawyer, and religious coercion would qualify as cause.
So I'm honestly not seeing the big "child abuse" problem here. Most parents can't manage to force their teenagers to actually attend school if they've a mind to skip, despite truancy laws already on the books. There are no such laws on the books for church attendance.
Then Dawkins is free not to expect anything of his child. What he cannot do is force his child-rearing methods on anybody else, in his own country or in mine. The sheer logistics of such a ridiculous idea are mind-boggling, since hardly anybody is going to purposely let their kids run wild without rules or expectations so long as they're legally responsible – and parents are, unless a guardian is appointed. At which point the guardian(s) impose rules and expectations.
It's just show biz. Something to rile up the 'enemy' and make Richard Dawkins look (again) the childish fool. Maybe he's amazed that people still pay him any mind at all, since he's tried as hard as he could to make himself utterly dismissible. So he's just pushing outrage to the limit because he can, and because people like you will take him seriously. He can laugh all the way to the bank.
But he can't have our children or dictate our laws based only on his fuzzy feelings and amazing lack of sociopolitical wisdom. I consider him dismissed. You can of course keep the echoes going as long as you like, if anyone cares to respond.
Have fun!
Comment by Joy — December 20, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Hi Keiths,
That's because he is a hypocrite. Look, the idea of making a religious upbringing illegal is just plain stupid. It's so stupid that even you have backed away from it. You easily found problems with it, yet no one had voted you the #1 intellectual. Clearly, we can agree that he abandoned reason and evidence when he signed that petition and continues to abandon reason and evidence when his official site prominently links to such stupidity.
Comment by MikeGene — December 20, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
I see. So Ken Miller is partly to blame for 911. Only an extremist would think that.
Comment by MikeGene — December 20, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Dawkins is saying that those moderate Christians who use blind faith (defined as belief in something without evidence or reason) to justify their beliefs forfeit the ability to criticize extremists on the basis of reason or evidence.
Keiths, please explain precisely what moderate Christians believe which is
"without evidence or reason."
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 1:10 am
Bradford asks:
Hi Bradford,
For example, some moderate Christians accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and others accept consubtantiation (which is what I believed when I was a Lutheran).
Comment by keiths — December 21, 2006 @ 1:10 am
December 21st, 2006 at 2:06 am
Hi Bradford,
For example, some moderate Christians accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and others accept consubtantiation (which is what I believed when I was a Lutheran).
From the linked site:
Why is at reasonable to take the position that one who believes in the above should forfeit the right "to criticize extremists on the basis of reason or evidence?" It seems to me that anyone taking such a position must assume not only the right to determine what constitutes reason and evidence, but also must maintain that they are completely free of any opinions not solidly grounded in reason and evidence. Not only does this appear arrogant and elitist, it flies in the face of basic values cherished in America and other western nations. It amounts to a censorship standard.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2006 @ 2:06 am
December 21st, 2006 at 3:36 am
Mike wrote:
"Backing away" implies a reversal. I never embraced it in the first place.
Even Britain's top public intellectuals, being human, make mistakes.
No, because there is a huge difference between making a mistake and abandoning reason and evidence.
I wrote:
"The extremists Dawkins is talking about are of the kind that fly airplanes into buildings, whip people for trimming their beards, or put people on the rack for rejecting the Trinity."
Mike responded:
Only in the sense that folks who didn't protest during Jim Crow were partly to blame for segregation, or in the sense that we are all partly to blame for the rising carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.
Bradford asks:
It's not that they lose the right to criticize, but rather that they lose the ability to criticize effectively. When you criticize someone who believes, through sheer faith, that God wants him to kill infidels, for example, your criticism is blunted to the extent that you yourself hold beliefs on the basis of blind faith.
Comment by keiths — December 21, 2006 @ 3:36 am
December 21st, 2006 at 8:17 am
When you criticize someone who believes, through sheer faith, that God wants him to kill infidels, for example, your criticism is blunted to the extent that you yourself hold beliefs on the basis of blind faith.
It is simply unacceptable to equate belief in murder with belief that bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Christ. An indication of this is the fact that most Muslims do not carry out or endorse the murder of non-Muslims. They recognize the extreme implications of it.
The biggest problem you and Dawkins might have however is the illusion that you have no faith of your own guiding your decisions. If you have views about any number of subject matters including ethics and politics you likely have a faith component mixed into it. Closer to home if you believe that life arose from unknown and unspecified chemical reactions then you do indeed have faith and should lose your ability to criticize opposing views at TT. Being the kind and generous souls that we are, we have allowed you to retain your posting privilages.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2006 @ 8:17 am
December 21st, 2006 at 9:17 am
Hi Keiths,
You write,
This is true. My apologies for the poor wording.
You may think it is a mistake, but there is no evidence that Dawkins thinks it is a mistake. So he can't even recognize his mistake. Is it mistakes all the way down?
Dawkins desire to make it illegal for people to take their children to church is not supported by any evidence or reason. So he did abandon reason and evidence to advocate such coercive extremism. Spilling milk is a mistake; putting your famous name to a petition, and then prominently advertising for that petition on your official web page every day, is not like spilling milk.
Or, look at it this way. Just how likely is it that you, keiths, would make a mistake and put your name to that petition and then go on to daily advertise it?
Also, Dawkins' desire to create an authoritarian-type environment is consistent with his views about this. If someone thinks raising your child to be Catholic is worse than sexually molesting that child, one can understand Dawkins position. After all, it is illegal to sexually molest children and, according to Dawkins, that might not be as harmful as going to church.
Comment by MikeGene — December 21, 2006 @ 9:17 am
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
[...] It is my speculation the notorious Beyond Belief Conference and Dawkins call to make religion illegal are signs secularism could be on the brink of crisis. Ironically, Daniel Dennett unwittingly gives powerful "scientific" reasons why secularism is doomed and why religion (which tends to be ID-friendly) will prevail as the dominant paradigm in human culture. See Evolution is Cruel to Dawkins and Dennett. [...]
Pingback by Dennett gives scientific reasons ID will prevail | Uncommon Descent — May 22, 2007 @ 10:24 pm