The Oxford Professor
by MikeGeneRichard Dawkins is having an e-mail battle with Bill Dembski. "I had not given the Blasphemy Challenge any thought until you called it to my attention," says Dawkins. Actually, given that evidence of much thought is lacking, I'm not surprised that Dawkins gives little thought to the things promoted on his own official web page. But then Dawkins does a little bragging:
Now that you have done so, I do not seem to feel strongly one way or the other. As that admirable bumper sticker has it, Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime. So, am I going to send in my own film clip denying the Holy Ghost? No, that is not what Oxford professors do, they write books instead.
Not quite. Oxford professors also hang out in basements with kids and bash religion. Look, while one Oxford professor is doing what he can do to make it illegal for parents to take their children to church, another Oxford professor, David Weatherall, has been behaving like a real scientist and trying to help the public understand the importance of scientific research.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
What, he's not allowed in a basement?, or to express disbelief? Or is there some combination to that which is inappropriate? Would it have been better if he'd stayed upstairs, or not gone to a house at all?
You know darn well that Dawkins hasn't proposed any such legislation, nor would he ever.
Are you at all interested in truthfully representing Dawkins?
Comment by Daniel — December 21, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Wait, this is interesting, Daniel. Are you sure Dawkins hasn't proposed any such legislation? Shall we place bets?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 21, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Daniel,
LOL! Whew! You're such a kidder! You know darn well that Dawkins is doing what he can do to make it illegal for parents to take their children to church.
HA, HA, HA! That's a good one!
HA, HA, HA!
Ha!
Ha, ha.
Huh, um.
Oh, wait, you're not joking. Maybe you don't know what Dawkins is up to. See here:
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=11...
Comment by Inquisitive Brain — December 21, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Wow - I stand corrected. That's an odd thing for someone to propose - a person can't change a culture with a piece of legislation, afterall.
But laws aside, don't you think it's funny that 99% of people don't choose to join a religion, and are instead simply indoctrinated? Even converting from one denomination to another is highly frowned upon, much less expressing disbelief altogether. No, I'm all for raising a child to be capable of deciding for one's self what he or she believes in - but legislating it will never work.
Comment by Daniel — December 21, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Inquisitive Brain,
I like your style.
Comment by Douglas — December 21, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Not in my personal experience with Christianity. Almost everyone I know who is a Christianity has chosen their religion. Many were not raised Christian. Some were but had an extended period of unbelief or searching before they made a sincere commitment. Christianity is very successful at making converts.
The idea that you can force a child to believe anything is a myth perpetuated by those who don't like religion.
Comment by Jehu — December 21, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Jehu:
You know, I have the same opinion. Makes me giggle every time I see these guys make some hysterical pronouncement that sounds a lot like…
"But what about the children!!!"
…as if they themselves didn't choose their non-belief, as if they aren't looking to influence other people's children to believe the same way they do, and as if parents have all that much influence over their children in the first place.
Luckily (according to Dawkins' website today), Science has been working on pinpointing where the true fault lies, and surprisingly, it's NOT with parents!
The Economic & Social Research Council this week determined that it's really:
Grandparents linked with church-going !
Now, since a majority of children are not being raised by their grandparents, it's a mystery what Dawkins and his foundation plan to do about this one. As a grandparent, I'm definitely curious. Any guesses for what the new proposed legislative petition will look like? §;o)
Comment by Joy — December 21, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Daniel -
Could you tell me how you would respond to the following statements?
I think its wrong to nationalize children. Who has the right to call a child an "American" child or a "Saudi" child? Children should be raised without nationality until they are old enough to decide which country they would like to be a citizen of.
Parents should not impose their linguistic preferences on their children. What right do you have to decide for your child what will be his first language? Children should be raised without language until they are old enough to decide for themselves what their first language will be.
Babies from a very early age are force fed a diet decided by their parents - a kind of culinary tyranny. Children should be raised without food until they reach an age where they are themselves capable of deciding which foods they like and dislike.
All statements are absurd (in my humble opinion) and it is increasingly obvious. Can you pinpoint the fallacy?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 21, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Otlichno, excellent, this is wonderful. You folks with your Duke and MIT degrees are fighting against an Oxford Professor's understanding of science! With success wishing to you on the internet.
Of course I welcome the views of Oyarsa:
Such is a great folly! As great a folly as if 'intelligent design' could have possibly been coined outside of the united states of America! Born into a non-nationalized nation?
Yet we're all for telic thinking here except for critics. So that means that persons who visit this site/blog as on-siders should support those fields of study (i.e. scientific/scholarly discplines) that encourage or support telic thinking to test and examine their views. This would be such a breath of fresh air aside from the artificial solutions presented by Richard Dawkins.
When I finally visit Oxford, even if Richard doesn't attend my presentation, I'll feel supported by those who reject his militant atheism.
Most people in the post-modern era feel that human existence involves a non-material or supra-physical dimension. The challenge is to find natural scientists who also agree with this perspective (as if MG doesn't welcome non-agnostic views!) while rigorously studying the consequences of causes and effects of material and physical contingencies on the supra-material/physical components of human life. Natural scientists may wonder when it is time to invite non-natural scientists (i.e. culturologists or social scientists) to the conversation table.
I'll have been waiting for months for such a possibility to occur.
Arago
Comment by g arago — December 21, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Wonders,
I'm not sure what you're getting at with your analogies. Both nationality and language are practical matters, relating to the context in which a person was raised. A person doesn't have much of a choice in such matters.
Is religion something that you're born into, and have no choice over? I think this is the question raised by some people. So far as my personal observations go, and what Jehu says aside, I know of very few people who have converted religions or denominations. Their opinions and such change, but they still identify themselves as the religion that they were raised in.
What I think Jehu and Joy misunderstand about my statement is that they confuse my statement about "converting" as meaning changing "belief." What I meant was going through the formal process of converting to, say, Catholicism. I know of one or two acquaintances who are converted Catholics (for reasons of marriage), but hundreds of
Catholics who were that Faith their entire lives. And many of those who I've talked with don't even know who wrote the first Gospel (anecdotal evidence, admittedly, but still…). Many of these Catholics go to church even less than I, an atheist, do (which is about twice a year). My point is that they're hardly Catholics, yet they're considered such, and the example of a Catholic converting to even Protestantism for reasons of belief (as opposed to marriage) is something I've not yet seen in my 29 years of life.
I'm sure it happens though, it's just rare in my experience. Why is that?
And I hope that you're not suggesting that "turning atheist" in a Christian community isn't frowned highly upon… if you really think that, they why the response from DaveScot and company to the "Blasphemy Challenge"?? No, expressing disbelief in this society commonly brings out such responses, providing stark evidence of intolerance of disbelief.
Comment by Daniel — December 21, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Daniel -
You didn't answer my question… or at least, it doesn't seem to me that you did. My statements were fallacious because language, nationality, and food are practical, and relate to the context of the person being raised? That's begging the question. The statements are arguing that those things should absolutely not relate to the context of how you are raised. My question is simply why the statements are wrong.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 21, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 6:16 pm
It is lamented which is different than being disowned, denigrated, or otherwise chastised. The phrase "frowned upon" is not sufficently precise. The mood reminds me of parent whose daughter falls in love and runs off with a known scoundrel. The parent doesn't see her actions as criminal, rather, she got seduced by a delusion….
I was a former Catholic, and now I'm a Presbyterian. Cornell Professor John Sanford is an example of an atheist turned Christian, turned Theistic Evoltuionist, turned Young Earth Creationist.
A large percentage of the leaders of the ID movement were Theistic Evolutionists, not Young Earth creationists (Paul Nelson is the notable exception).
Francis Collins was raised in a FreeThinker (atheist/agnostic) home. He was an atheist, and now is part of nearby Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). In some resepcts, EPC is even more conservative than my denomination (PCA).
You are extrapolating your small sample size to infer why people believe or disbelieve. I know of no Christian family in my highly conservative circles who would denigrate, demean, or disown their children for being atheists. A Chrisitian parent would rather their children choose and love the Lord of their own free will, and not because of some psychological brainwashing.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 21, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Hi Daniel,
"But laws aside, don't you think it's funny that 99% of people don't choose to join a religion, and are instead simply indoctrinated?"
Define indoctrination.
Comment by Krauze — December 21, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Wonders,
As I said, I wasn't quite sure what answer you were looking for, but I gave my answer:
In short, I'm sure there were multiple things wrong with the examples you gave, and while I don't appreciate playing games about what you think was wrong with the examples, I politely gave it a shot. If you want a more specific answer, please ask a more specific question.
Salvador,
Okay, lamented. But lamented harshly - though not as bad as, say, homosexuality, "coming out" as an atheist is not an easy thing to do in this society.
Also, re:conversion, I explicitly said that I'm sure there are examples. In my life, I personally know of none, but I was not questioning that it can and does happen for some people. So, please don't make it sound as though I was arguing that it doesn't happen - it does - it's just far from being an everyday occurence.
Comment by Daniel — December 21, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Krauze,
I use indoctrine in the sense of dogmatic instruction, according to "an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
Comment by Daniel — December 21, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 6:54 pm
OK, here are my answers.
Exactly where would you have these children live, if not with their parents? If when they are of age they desire to apply for citizenship of another country, how will they do this without a country of their own to apply from? It actually makes a child far more likely to eventually be able to make a decision about where to live if he has grown up with a place to live.
How is the child going to communicate which language he wants to learn without language? How will he investigate this? The child will be in a far better position to learn the new language of his choice if he has one already to use for communication.
Um…if you don't have food as a baby, you will die. You need to be fed in order to grow to an age where you can decide what to eat.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 21, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Sal,
One more bit:
Sure, they just weep for those who profess disbelief. That's a fine example of extreme emotional attachment to having others believe something if I ever saw one - and certainly anything but acceptance of their choices.
Comment by Daniel — December 21, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Wonders,
Your examples are all or none, and as such, completely bogus. Where did you get the notion that I was arguing that children need be kept away from their parents' religions?? Of course a child will necessarily be exposed to the beliefs of his or her parents! To think otherwise is foolish, and impossible.
For each of these, yes, even nationality, language and foods, children should have the opportunity to learn a diverse array of experiences and be encouraged to experiment with cultural options that are available to them. But no, by and large (at least here in the States), most children are not exposed to such diversity of belief, or language (since you brought it up).
With nationality, language, and foods, however, one can grow up to identify with more than one of each - not so with religion. And for Sal's examples of people who were bold enough to learn and convert as they saw fit, I would applaud their doing so (even if I disagree with their conclusions). But such people are the exception, in my experience, not the rule.
Comment by Daniel — December 21, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 7:35 pm
You miss the point I was making. The Christian parents I know would want the faith the children have to be rooted in sincerity, not conformist pressure. Yes, it would grieve a Christian parent to see a child reject their parent's values, but would not be a better situation if the children were insincere or decided to believe soley because mommy and daddy said so.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 21, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
December 21st, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Daniel:
This is all true. But I would add that parentage and extended personal identity are things a person doesn't have much choice about either. And that socio-cultural factors like worldview, norms, taboos and ideals of behavior and beliefs are intimately related to the context in which a person is raised.
A child is normally introduced to the belief system of his/her family, tribe and culture. And in first world countries, free to choose as well. By the time they're teenagers, the vast majority of kids these days have been exposed to a lot more diversity of cultures, ethnicity and religion than when I was young. In a small world such as ours has become, this is necessary and desirable.
But a broadened knowledge of and tolerance for diverse beliefs and traditions doesn't mean everyone believes the same things. This is the misunderstanding that rules the emotions of both radical 'camps' in this metaphysical duel. It causes them to become wannabe mind-tyrants, believing they can impose and control the innermost thoughts, beliefs and subjective experiences of humanity (if they only had the power).
Have you considered the strong probability that people tend to stay where they were all along because they feel 'safest' - most comfortable and accepted - within that belief system? The exercise of exploring other beliefs is a good thing, as is the concurrent critical analysis of the old tradition. If they come 'home', it is with intellectual conviction and a broader mind. If they leave, they found a more satisfying 'home'.
What's wrong with that?
Um… because the individual doesn't think it's necessary? If THEY don't feel it's important enough to their life and identity to go through a whole ritualistic process, why should you care?
Yeah, and the nasty insults spewed 24 hours a day all over the internet by Evangelical Atheists and juvenile delinquents (II's contingent) and supported by the not-very 'brights' doesn't express stark evidence of intolerance of belief? Petitioning for laws against allowing parents to take their children to church isn't stark evidence of intolerance of belief?
Face it, Daniel. The radicals are all in it for the bar-fight - they're vying for power not looking for converts. Those of us who aren't so radical are mostly semi-amused by the histrionics, and somewhat alarmed by the totalitarian tendencies on both sides.
…and we honestly don't care what you choose to believe, so long as you're not breaking any laws or being an abusive jerk. THAT is why neither fringe is going to 'win' the power to impose this sort of coercive law.
Comment by Joy — December 21, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Hi Daniel,
You write, "Wow - I stand corrected. That's an odd thing for someone to propose - a person can't change a culture with a piece of legislation, afterall."
It's interesting that you spoke with such a sense of certainty about Dawkins "“ "You know darn well that Dawkins hasn't proposed any such legislation, nor would he ever."
And what's odd about it? Dawkins stupidly believes that a religious upbringing is child abuse. Well"¦.er"¦.the governments of civilized nations make child abuse illegal. I spoke of Dawkins' sense of logic and morality here. As you can see, I was spot on. He made his choice.
Comment by MikeGene — December 24, 2006 @ 11:50 am
December 24th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
And what's odd about it? Dawkins stupidly believes that a religious upbringing is child abuse. Well"¦.er"¦.the governments of civilized nations make child abuse illegal.
Good point. The choice of words is significant when the phrase points to an activity universally outlawed. He could have said such upbringing was ill-advised, not in the best interests of children etc. But these would not have been trigger phrases. Dawkins' MO is in your face hostility.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Indeed. But it's more than "in your face hostility." It's bigotry. Again, I will point out that for years many critics of ID have attacked and ridiculed some of us for highlighting Dawkins' extremism and hypocrisy.
Comment by MikeGene — December 24, 2006 @ 1:54 pm