Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

On 4/28/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So if the pedophile truly believes that it is all about love, it is
> somehow ok? Is the abuse experienced by a girl whose friends are
> threatened with hell fire, which is real if we are to believe the
> woman's story, then is it ok that the parents truly believed that this
> were the case? Where do we draw the line?
>
>
> We are now entering a shady area of intent versus consequence. If
> someone truly believes that he can fly and is about to step out of a
> window, should we allow him to do so? If someone truly believes that
> he can safely handle poisonous snakes because of a religious faith,
> should we allow the person to do so? What if the person exposes his
> children to such behavior? What about the person who truly believes
> that his wife is his property? Or that his daughters need to be
> circumcised?

There is a clear difference here. There is empirical evidence that if you
jump out of a window you'll fall and kill yourself. Such a person is
clearly deluded. The paedophile who genuinely believes it is all about love
(if such a paedophile exists) is clearly deeply into self-delusion.
But you have no such evidence that belief in hell is a delusion. It's just
an assertion that Dawkins makes. So it's YOUR argument is a straw man.

While we're on the subject (about telling what you truly believe to be the
truth to someone and as a result them suffering mental torment), take a look
at the first review of "The Selfish Gene" on Amazon.com by Michael Edwards
at
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0199291144/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6167102-3134436?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177796787&sr=8-1

Dawkins told in the Selfish Gene what he passionately believes to be the
truth. Michael Edwards read it - was totally convinced, found his fledgling
religious faith totally shattered, and suffered severe bouts of depression
as a result. He is left a profoundly unhappy person with a God-shaped hole
that he can't fill because Dawkins has convinced him of the truth that there
is no God.

Is his experience not similar than that of the girl who had nightmares about
her friend going to hell? Therefore is it not also true to say that Edwards
suffered mental abuse as a result of Dawkins telling what he believed to be
the truth? If Dawkins had stuck to the science, and not continually plugged
his message that God is superfluous, then Edwards may well have not been
damaged the way he has.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 28 17:57:19 2007