Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

On 4/28/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's just plain silly.

So .. we're resorting to insults then? The ad hominem has never been a
strong argument.

Can you prove that one is more a delusion
> than the other? Can you prove that hell exists?

No I can't. Can you prove it doesn't? No you can't. So your point doesn't
seem to have any relevance.

I am certain that some
> pedophiles are quite certain that it is all about love and that they
> are insistent that they are not delusional.

They are obviously delusional. Hands clapped hard over ears when child
cries out "oh daddy please stop!!" And then there's the scenario with the
"gentle" abuser where the grown up child says "I hate you, you bastard for
what you did to me", and they say "It was all because I loved you". Again,
a clear case of hands clapped over ears.

Sure, you can find people who were frightened to death of hell. How many
such people end up on the line to the Samaritans in the middle of the most
appalling panic attacks? Not any that I've spoken to, but I've spoken to
plenty who were sexually abused. Some were "gently" abused and some were
violently abused. The result is always the same - self-loathing and guilt,
especially the victims of the "gentle" abusers, who initially enjoyed
pleasing a parent. Sure, some people get nightmares about hell - then they
end up rejecting the whole thing as a pack of lies, become atheists and are
grateful for having escaped. They don't end up having panic attacks. The
victims of sexual abuse rarely get over the trauma. Here's some empirical
data for you to consider:

Calls I've taken from people having panic attacks recalling sexual abuse -
dozens.
Calls I've taken from people having panic attacks about being told about
hell as children - none.

>
> So we agree then that such is abuse? I think I have done my work then.
> After all, the tu quoque defense never has been a good one.

Actually we don't agree. My point, which you seem to have failed to
appreciate, is that if Dawkins wants to say telling children about hell is
abuse (which I don't agree it is), then you must also agree that Dawkins
telling people there's no God is also abuse. Actually I think neither is
abuse, but clearly buggering children is abuse. If you can't see the
difference ... well, words fail me.

>
> Have you read the Selfish Gene ?

Yes.

What part do you think caused the 'harm'?

Try reading the review that Edwards wrote and work it out for yourself. The
book convinced him that God was superfluous, and given Dawkins's hostility
to religion, which you still apparently refuse to acknowledge, that was
entirely Dawkins's intent.

Or was it the science after
> all? And the harm was done at an earlier stage?

Did you actually read the review? Read it and tell me what you thought did
the damage.

Here's the key point:

<quote>The book renders a God or supreme power of any sort quite superfluous
for the purpose of accounting for the way the world is, and the way life is.
It accounts for the nature of life, and for human nature, only too well,
whereas most religions or spiritual outlooks raise problems that have to be
got around. It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and
makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to
refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual
outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the
effects of this book on me.</quote>

I can't recall the exact bit in TSG that would produce this conclusion (but
there are some pretty nasty digs, one at the virgin birth I recall), but the
chapter "God's utility function", in River Out of Eden, which concludes that
there is no sense or purpose in nature just "blind pitiless indifference",
would seem to be making the same sort of point. I think the concluding
sentence is something like:

"DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music"

Stuff of nightmares? Yes. Abuse. I don't think so, logically you must
agree that it is abuse.

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 19:52:51 2007