tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post8649629848861804448..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Has Dawkins totally jumped the shark?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49285743230775990652007-01-03T18:36:00.000-06:002007-01-03T18:36:00.000-06:00Dawkins is not against education concerning religi...Dawkins is not against education concerning religion, he is against the indoctrination and labeling of children according to any one religion. If you read his book the God Delusion, he makes it very clear that he considers the religious indoctrination of children to be one of the most dangerous things to the general well being of society at large. His arguments are very persuasive. The point of the petition is get people talking about just how dangerous religious indoctrination is.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12130440380161674226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68024468914030404442006-12-31T12:52:00.000-06:002006-12-31T12:52:00.000-06:00In the original post Martin said that it's not unr...In the original post Martin said that it's not unreasonable to assume people will be going to jail. It's illegal to do 70 in a 60 zone, but you don't go to jail for it. In fact, I think many infractions you just get a fine for it. But I can't be sure about that.Indefualhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09123563441384326357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4698553364647645312006-12-30T19:20:00.000-06:002006-12-30T19:20:00.000-06:00Well, "regular" instruction can very easily take p...Well, "regular" instruction can very easily take place in the home, too. The petition, as it is, is too vaguely worded. Dawkins seems to agree now, as he's backed off supporting it.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36484466736537069902006-12-30T19:02:00.000-06:002006-12-30T19:02:00.000-06:00Somehow I am extracting a very different meaning f...Somehow I am extracting a very different meaning from this same petition. As I read it, it proposes that no child be taught about religion by the state. Isn't that what is meant by "regular": regulated? Also, I see it proposing that no one be legally associated with any religion until they are sixteen, whereupon they may select their affiliation. The way I read it, it isn't outrageous, as it makes no comment on what people do in the privacy of their home or church. <br /><br />Though, I would be upset if I interpreted it as most have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80644326195345288912006-12-30T14:04:00.000-06:002006-12-30T14:04:00.000-06:00It wouldn't be simple, but I see a distinct differ...<i>It wouldn't be simple, but I see a distinct difference between a child being taught about religion, a child voluntarily participating in religious activities and a child which is forced (indoctrinated) into religious practice/observation etc.</i><br /><br />Well, usually when the last happens, the parents have crossed the line into other things that are already crimes. See the whole Warren Jeffs scenario for that. To respond to a point both Matt and Tracie seem to be making: we <i>already don't</i> live a culture where you can do "whatever you want" to your child and get away with it by calling it your religion. Again, <i>see Warren Jeffs</i>, as well as all the "faith healing" believing parents now cooling their asses in jail because they refused life saving medical care for their kids. It's already true that if real physical harm comes to your child, you can't plead "but it's my religion" and walk home scot free. <br /><br />That's what's wrong with this petition. It makes no distinction between killing or hurting your child in the name of your god, and singing "Silent Night" around the Christmas tree.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3201874823363840452006-12-30T13:44:00.000-06:002006-12-30T13:44:00.000-06:00Agreed - again. Though I'll address one question y...Agreed - again. Though I'll address one question you asked?<br /><br />"But here's the sticky point. If you live in a society that allows freedom of religion, how can you possibly say, "But don't indoctrinate your kids now, they're too young!" without intruding on that very free practice? "<br /><br />It wouldn't be simple, but I see a distinct difference between a child being taught about religion, a child voluntarily participating in religious activities and a child which is forced (indoctrinated) into religious practice/observation etc.<br /><br />It really is a sticky wicket, which is why I think this petition puts the cart before the horse (at best) and is just fundamentally wrong (at the worst). The solution their advocating is impractical - and unreasonable - which is why I favor more positive, external approaches. :)Matt D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44752680371091055672006-12-30T13:34:00.000-06:002006-12-30T13:34:00.000-06:00I pretty much agree with Matt. I also feel it took...I pretty much agree with Matt. I also feel it took me far too long to free my mind from the fundamentalist religious shackles that held back my ability to think critically, logically, and intelligently. I still, to this day, wonder how much of how I think is the result of those fundamentalist ideas. I don't see how I can ever be sure I've actually gotten it all out of my head.<br /><br />I do feel this is akin to other forms of child abuse. A child raised in a home with dysfunction can never really know on what levels that dysfunction is affecting his/her thoughts and actions as an adult. You may be free from the abuser--but what is left in your head? And if it starts in infancy, how do you judge what is really coming from "you" and what is coming from that early, dysfunctional learning?<br /><br />As an adult I believe it is my responsibility to cope with that now. And I fully believe my parents were trying to do what they believed was best for me--so I harbor no ill feelings toward them; I know my religious indoctrination was not an attempt to mess with my head. But it did.<br /><br />Meanwhile, when I see parents home-schooling in states with little or no oversight--such as Texas--I want to "save" those kids from a similar fate. I don't want them to have to struggle through 20 years of trying to untangle the "delusions" they've had so deeply implanted into their heads that they don't even know what thoughts are their own and what thoughts were seeded there before they were old enough to think for themselves.<br /><br />I totally agree that exposure and indoctrination are not the same. And I question the legality of, say, the Amish practice of stopping education before the high school years. Can a child so extremely sheltered and then pulled out of school somewhere in middle school really be called "equipped" to make a rational decision about what he/she believes? I have seen ex-Amish, and their stories aren't pretty. Leaving is no picnic, and they're ill-equipped to survive in the outside world once they do muster the strength to walk away.<br /><br />Religious parenting runs a gamut from "mostly harmless" to "abuse," in my opinion. And our "hands off how you raise your kids" attitude should be examined in this regard. Calling it my "religion" is not free reign to do whatever I want to a child. And some of what is legally being done in the U.S. is not what I consider acceptable. Would I consider outlawing it? I'd have to see the proposal to answer that. But I certainly wouldn't give a blanket "no."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68766720866038278092006-12-30T13:03:00.000-06:002006-12-30T13:03:00.000-06:00True, we've even allowed Christian Scientists to, ...<i>True, we've even allowed Christian Scientists to, essentially, kill their children by refusing medical treatment in the name of religious freedom - I just happen to think it's wrong. I favor personal freedom, but your personal freedom stops where someone else's begins - including a child.</i><br /><br />I'm sure you'll agree that reading a child Bible stories and denying them medical care so that they die are two vastly different things. The latter happens very rarely, and in any event, killing someone already falls under laws governing murder and manslaughter, so there really isn't a comarison between the two.<br /><br />While I agree the <i>sentiment</i> behind the petition is a good idea -- labeling children as belonging to a religion they are too young to understand -- it is, again, not the kind of thing you can remedy through legislative fiat.<br /><br /><i>Again, these rules don't prohibit kids from voluntarily practicing a religion, they prohibit parents from indoctrinating kids. Granted, I'm still opposed to the petition, but I certainly favor the ideas behind it.</i><br /><br />But here's the sticky point. If you live in a society that allows freedom of religion, <i>how</i> can you possibly say, "But don't indoctrinate your kids now, they're too young!" without intruding on that very free practice? Trying to draw an analogy to more obvious forms of child abuse — beating, neglect, rape, all that — is dubious at best. Most people would laugh at the idea that simply taking a child to Sunday School is remotely abusive, or even an act of indoctrination. People could more reliably argue that letting kids watch Spongebob Squarepants is abuse. And you cannot avoid running into that problem of intrusion again: "How dare you tell me what I can or can't tell my kids."<br /><br />Also, the whole"indoctrination" line has been used by creationists as well, in their attempts to get ID taught in schools. "They're not exposing kids to other ideas, that's <i>indoctrination</i>!" Granted, where science teaching is concerned, there's the little matter of facts (evolution) versus fiction (creationism). But my point is that "indoctrination" is a very emotionally and politically loaded word that can be misused and misapplied easily. You'd have a hard time selling the public on the idea that saying prayers with their children at bedtime is any form of indoctrination. And as we both already agree, there's no way for the law to step in on this without violating privacy and the sanctity of the home.<br /><br />A better method would be to improve children's education through more exposure to comparative religion studies — which happens to be a position Dawkins does endorse.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57097231554567559682006-12-30T12:45:00.000-06:002006-12-30T12:45:00.000-06:00This is a far more complex issue than people seem ...This is a far more complex issue than people seem to want to acknowledge. While I think Martin and I probably agree on many of the sub-issues, I find that I have some objections to a few of his points. I'll hit those first and then give my quick (read: initial, unformulated) opinion.<br /><br />"The first and most obvious thing that comes to mind is that what the petition asks is something that in America is unequivocally unconstitutional: government intrusion in private religious practice."<br /><br />True, we've even allowed Christian Scientists to, essentially, kill their children by refusing medical treatment in the name of religious freedom - I just happen to think it's wrong. I favor personal freedom, but your personal freedom stops where someone else's begins - including a child. We frequently allow the government to step in to remove children from abusive homes - physical and mental abuse. While I'm not saying that all religious teaching is child abuse, I'm of the opinion that much of it is. I think the petition is a HUGE tactical mistake and that it is over-reaching and ill-defined...and I couldn't support it. On the other hand, the thought behind the petition, that we should do whatever we reasonably can to discourage and eliminate the indoctrination of children - that I support, fully.<br /><br />"Is Dawkins perhaps thinking, Well, we prohibit children from drinking and driving and voting and going off to war until a certain age. Shouldn't we consider religious indoctrination similarly risky and withhold it until the age of consent as well?"<br /><br />I don't think those are the examples that Dawkins would find analogous. The issue isn't about "prohibiting children" it's about prohibiting parents. We prohibit parents from abusing their children. For those, like Dawkins (and me to a lesser degree), who consider religious indoctrination (note that this doesn't simply mean EXPOSURE to religious ideas - I strongly favor that) to be child abuse - it makes sense to work to stop it.<br /><br />"Does Dawkins think that freethought can only arise in a young mind if religion is kept away?"<br /><br />While I certainly can't speak for him, I think the answer would be: no...but freethought is more likely to arise in a young mind free from religious indoctrination.<br /><br />"I was raised Christian,... Despite this youthful "indoctrination," I emerged a freethinker and an atheist every bit as hardline as Dawkins. Most other atheists have come from a religious tradition. Team member Matt Dillahunty has described himself as a former fundamentalist who was firmly on board the young-earth creationist train."<br /><br />But we're the exception, not the rule. (And, on a side note, I'm not sure that I was ever "really" a young-earther...but I was certainly about as close as you can come)<br /><br />Essentially, you're implying that as long as people CAN escape from religious delusions, then it's really not a big deal to indoctrinate kids. I'd point out that people can and do escape all sorts of abusive situations, be they cults or family - that doesn't mean we just write it off as an essential freedom.<br /><br />"We've all seen how well laws banning kids from buying cigarettes have succeeded in eradicating teen smoking."<br /><br />Again, these rules don't prohibit kids from voluntarily practicing a religion, they prohibit parents from indoctrinating kids. Granted, I'm still opposed to the petition, but I certainly favor the ideas behind it.<br /><br />"So I think he needs to get on his website and immediately post an editorial or something explaining why he endorses this petition, and what he thinks it means."<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />Some final notes:<br /><br />We, as a society, tend to expose our children to ideas gradually. I think, though I'm not certain, that Dawkins point is that, as with sex education, children should be introduced to ideas when their minds are capable of understanding. I was taught about Jesus before I could walk and talk. Despite the fact that I managed to claw my way out of the religious mire (after 30 years), I find that to be immoral, and potentially abusive. A childs mind is like a ball of clay and you can mold it however you want.<br /><br />I don't think my parents meant any harm. In fact, I'm certain that they meant only good and taught me what they believed to be true. I realize that most people raised religiously don't suffer any serious effects. Most end up being Easter/Christmas Christians (or the religious equivalent in other faiths). So, in general, I'm not opposed to religious teaching - though I am opposed to religious indoctrination, and that's a difference that may still be too difficult to define.<br /><br />Consider the White Separatists movement, specifically the musical group "Prussian Blue". These two young girls have had their mind polluted with racist ideas and are singing about things that they barely understand - and have been doing so since before they really could have understood.<br /><br />While I can't support this petition, and I'm not in favor of excessive intrusion into how parents raise children, I do think that it's time to broaden the scope of that intrusion - just a bit. Perhaps a better plan would be to improve what we teach in schools and require to be taught in home schools. Flood them with the means to escape and it will make little difference what sort of religious training they've endured.<br /><br />-MattMatt D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61404813615120063092006-12-30T12:13:00.000-06:002006-12-30T12:13:00.000-06:00Gary,
I thought he was more reasonable than Sam H...Gary,<br /><br /><i>I thought he was more reasonable than Sam Harris (who explicitly has advocated killing people for their beliefs)</i><br /><br />Where does Harris do this?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33391200161220459462006-12-30T08:41:00.000-06:002006-12-30T08:41:00.000-06:00i think people should wait till dawkins says somet...i think people should wait till dawkins says something in regards to it before jumping to conclusions...Startswithajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07409790275165679164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85380318771074037472006-12-30T06:28:00.000-06:002006-12-30T06:28:00.000-06:00Does Dawkins have any idea what the words "free th...Does Dawkins have any idea what the words "free thought" mean? I thought he was more reasonable than Sam Harris (who explicitly has advocated killing people for their beliefs), but this makes me wonder.<br /><br />The petition regarding religious schools isn't restricted to government-funded ones: It says: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in <b>all UK schools.</b>" Calling such a prohibition "freedom of choice" demonstrates either gross ignorance of the English language or cynical dishonesty.Gary McGathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880087933512343984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12148911811197047602006-12-30T05:18:00.000-06:002006-12-30T05:18:00.000-06:00I tend to agree with Mr. Dawkins on his support of...I tend to agree with Mr. Dawkins on his support of this bill. Why should we as taxpayers pay money, For some most than likely Christian to teach religion? I just wonder how many children would ever pick up a Bible, as they grow older? But at least with this bill they would have a choice. I do not think the Government should have any powers over what a parent is allowed to teach their children though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28522003764372130862006-12-30T00:23:00.000-06:002006-12-30T00:23:00.000-06:00To the second anonymous:
Dawkins links to the pe...To the second anonymous: <br /><br />Dawkins links to the petition (as well as another one, about disallowing government-funded religious schools, a much less problematic topic IMHO) on his <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/home">home page here</a>; it's the third item down.<br /><br />Also, go to the petition itself, and you'll see <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/?showall=1">Dawkins' signature is second on the list</a>. The petition itself was created by one Jamie Wallis. I'm sorry if I was unclear in my post and gave people the impression that Dawkins was the author of the petition; he has only endorsed it. I have gone on to amend the original post to clarify this.<br /><br />To anonymous #2: the bad wording is why I'd like a clarification from Dawkins. Did Dawkins sign the petition because he genuinely felt it applied only to formal education and not to what parents do in terms of their own children's religious instruction? I'd like to know, because I'd prefer to avoid any kind of a knee-jerk Brayton freakout just yet.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23485961505694201132006-12-29T23:53:00.000-06:002006-12-29T23:53:00.000-06:00Despite my earlier comment, (I was the first comme...Despite my earlier comment, (I was the first commenter, the theist) and yes I believe objective religious education in all faiths and critical thinking an excellent idea, I do not believe for a second Prof. Dawkins is actually advocating restriction of parents rights to raise their children as they please, but more likely a removal of faith based teaching from the class room - calling for the end of the mandatory school prayer/collective worship we have in this country - though you can opt out. That in itself is not such a bad idea.<br /><br />The problem is I think the petition if badly worded. Clarification is required, not condemnation. And heck, this is coming from me, a Christian!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26806336901324541972006-12-29T23:49:00.000-06:002006-12-29T23:49:00.000-06:00How do you know this petition is from Dawkins? I ...How do you know this petition is from Dawkins? I am inclined to believe it is not, seeing as it is so hard to believe he would do such a thing, until I see proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57191423182621289142006-12-29T23:11:00.000-06:002006-12-29T23:11:00.000-06:00The more I think about this petition, it occurs to...The more I think about this petition, it occurs to me just what it is. It's the religion equivalent of abstinence education.<br /><br />Here in the US, for those of you reading this from the UK and elsewhere, there's been a movement by religious conservatives to reduce sex education in schools to a simple "don't do it till you're married" level of finger-wagging moral instruction.<br /><br />The idea is, I guess, that all you have to do to get teenagers not to have sex is to instruct them not to have sex. Voila! Teenage sex goes away.<br /><br />Likewise, the idea behind this petition seems to be that if you shelter children from religion during their formative years, then, when they're mature grown-ups, they'll have the intellect and education to look at it and realize what a load of tosh it all is, and throw it in the dumpster where it belongs, like leftover milk.<br /><br />Both notions are ludicrous in the extreme and reveal a failure to understand how human beings behave in reality.<br /><br />I'd offer a counter-petition to the one Dawkins is endorsing. Require all schoolchildren to take at least one year, preferably more, of comparative religion. Let them see firsthand how many different belief systems there are in the world, and how so many of them from foreign lands and ancient times that may seem silly at first are revealed, upon rational examination, to be not all that less silly than what you're being brought up in right now.<br /><br />No one ever made bad decisions by being <i>too</i> well-educated. But all manner of bad decisions can be made by people who think that the best way to deal with dangerous ideas is to supress and hide them. On the contrary, subject them to the harshest light of scrutiny imaginable. The easiest way to see that the emperor has no clothes is to turn the spotlight right on him.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78787728201993375542006-12-29T20:31:00.000-06:002006-12-29T20:31:00.000-06:00I went to Dawkins' webs site for a few minutes and...I went to Dawkins' webs site for a few minutes and could not find him referencing this petition.<br />I think it unlikely he actually sign off on this crap but if he I predict he'll be retracting shortly as the shit will hit fan. This petition is fascistic nonsense.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09711262934550781276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36377081617825923032006-12-29T20:04:00.000-06:002006-12-29T20:04:00.000-06:00Martin -
Personaly, I find this very disturbing. ...Martin -<br />Personaly, I find this very disturbing. I was finaly convinced that Dawkins is not the kind of nut that would espouse a belief in restricting parents from teaching their kids about religion, that he simply finds it repugnant. This was a bit of a slap from that.<br /><br />Anon -<br /><br />"Brave New World" did not restrict parenting - there are no longer parents, as such, in the Huxley's novel (one of my absolute favorite novels btw). "1984" would be a much better comparison. And so appropriate considering that this petition is going around in Britain and Orwell was British. Still, I agree 100% with the sentiment - I just have to succumb to my nit-pick nature.DuWayne Braytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04074683871047219790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1314845675269876992006-12-29T18:59:00.000-06:002006-12-29T18:59:00.000-06:00I saw your comment over on Dawkins.net I'm a thei...I saw your comment over on Dawkins.net I'm a theist who favours the liberty of parents to teach their children what they want: but what really worries me is the idea that children raised in total ignorance of religion will be susceptible to the first religious snake oil salesman they come across. That would make converting people easier, but disturbs me deeply. Kids should learn about religions, all of them, and atheism, and be allowed to make free choice. <br /><br />I also strongly oppose any authoritarian imposition on parents right to raise their children as they please. Far too 'Brave New World' for me.<br /><br />I admire much about Richard Dawkins, but feel both his petitions need clarification. I like your strong and principled stand -- good article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com