Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

Once again Pim, you fail to get the point. I guess everyone here is wrong,
no one else can read Dawkins and interpret what he says and understand him
except you. I guess you have some special Dawkins gift.

I stand by what I said earlier about Dawkins desire to stop parents from
passing their beliefs onto their children. Like the post from Phil stated,
Dawkins wants a clean slate, a break from all "herditary" religion. You are
a fool Pim if you dont see that, and if you dont see why he wants that, it
is obvious, he wants a world without religion.

And I have been puzzled all along about what Dawkins has been complaining
about in terms of us labeling our children as such and such. For the most
part I do not think that is true. I think most of us raise our children
with certain beliefs but we do not declare them to be believers until they
come of age.

But there is an exception to that, and maybe that is what Dawkins is talking
about, and is again an area in which he knows nothing, and is showing his
ignorance. And that is the idea of covenant children. I can see that we
can talk about our children as part of our church, or a part of the covenant
after baptism. And in that way they are"labled" in the way that Dawkins is
complaing about, but as a believer, I see absolutely nothing wrong with
that.

So what about you Pim? Does it really bother you that we are upset about
Dawkins complaints about aspects of our beliefs that he doesnt like even
though he doesnt know anything about it? Whose side are you on? And dont
answer by telling me that I have read him out of context, and dont
understand him, and am setting up a strawman, blah blah blah. Dawkins is as
transparent as a pane of glass. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

> http://richarddawkins.net/article,644,Richard-Dawkins-interview-with-Paula-Zahn,CNN-Richard-Dawkins
>
>
> Dawkins: "people should be free to believe whatever they like, to
> write whatever they like, within reason"
>
> Dawkins: "Neither I nor any atheist know ever threatens violence"
>
> As to cows in Wisconsin versus healthcare in Cuba, may I point to the
> use of growth hormones, antibiotics all in the name of improved milk
> production versus healthcare statistics in Cuba
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba. Just to show that
> there are many sides to the story.
>
> We are however getting further and further away from the issues which
> are that as Christians we have to be careful how we portray those who
> disagree with us. Otherwise we end up giving them more power over us
> and more power over others as they can point to our ignorance as an
> effective argument against not only our position but in favour of
> their own.
>
> I personally believe that people assign far too much to Dawkins and
> that we have to be careful not to be seen as creating strawmen or
> bogieman scenarios where we assign positions to Dawkins which are just
> plain outrageous and unsupported.
> Again, this is just my personal opinion and yet I have seen some on
> this group already falling victim to such behavior. That's unfortunate
> and a fair warning to others.
>
> In
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,914,Brian-Lehrer-interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-Brian-Lehrer-Show-Richard-Dawkins,
> Richard Dawkins talks to Lehrer and answers many of the questions
> people have raised on this group.
> Enjoy.
>
> Phil:
>>He wants a "clean break" from "heritage religion." He is talking
> about the right of parents to pass > their religion to their children.
> He wants the state to intervene so that parents cannot do that any >
> more. He wants the state to have a role in giving the children
> freedom from their parents'
>> religion. This directly contradicts what you say (falsely) below.
>
>
> I realize that it may take an effort to comprehend Dawkins' position.
> In this case you claim that Dawkins wants the state to intervene to
> pass their religion on to their children. And yet the article clearly
> presents quite a different viewpoint than the one you want to impose
> upon it
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,625743,00.html -
> Children must choose their own beliefs
>
>
>
> <quote>In particular, it is normal and pleasing that parental impact
> should be strong. I'm not talking particularly about genes, but about
> all the influences that parents inevitably bring. It is to be expected
> that cricketing fathers will bowl to their sons - or daughters - on
> the back lawn, take them to Lords, and pass on their love of the game.
> There will be some tendency for ornithologists to have bird-watching
> children, bibliophiles book-loving children. Beliefs and tastes,
> political biases and hobbies, these will tend, at least statistically,
> to pass longitudinally down generations, and nobody would wish it
> otherwise.
>
> But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens. Where
> we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey will
> take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby. </quote>
>
> Dawkins then focuses on the public education
>
> <quote>But what do we do? We deliberately set up, and massively
> subsidise, segregated faith schools. As if it were not enough that we
> fasten belief-labels on babies at birth, those badges of mental
> apartheid are now reinforced and refreshed. In their separate schools,
> children are separately taught mutually incompatible beliefs. </quote>
>
> to come to the final conclusion
>
> <quote>Please, I beg you, strongly discourage the use, in all
> ministerial documents and inter-departmental memos, of phrases that
> presume theological opinions in children too young to have any. Please
> foster a climate in which it becomes impossible to use a phrase like
> 'Catholic children', 'Protestant children', 'Jewish children' or
> 'Muslim children' without wincing. It only costs two words more to
> say, for instance, 'children of Muslim parents' or 'children of Jewish
> parents'. </quote>
>
>
>
>> Now I wish that children in non-Christian religions had some choice even
>> while young. That is
>> because I truly believe that all religions are NOT equal. I believe
>> Christianity alone is correct
>> and therefore it would be best if all children hear the gospel, along
>> with their parents. On the
>> other hand, Muslims feel the same way about educating everybody's
>> children into Islam. And
>> others like Dawkins presume that all religions are false and so they want
>> children to have a
>> secular education to help them get free from all religions and to make a
>> "clean break" from "
>> heritage religion." This raises the old question, who gets the right to
>> determine what children are
>> taught? Do the Christians get to decide? Do Muslims? Does Dawkins? We
>> as a society have
>> already fought this battle over the past 200 years and we have agreed
>> that it is the parents who
>> get to decide for their own children. The state was taken out of the
>> equation.
>
> But not in the UK where state schools are in fact religious. So your
> presumption that the state is taken out of the equation is exactly
> that which is the point of Dawkins' argument, it isn't. What if we
> were to expose our children to all viewpoints and have them decide?
> Are we doing our children a favor by indoctrinating them with our
> beliefs?
> To understand that there are many gradations, should we allow children
> to be beaten because that's what the religion teaches, should we
> allow children to be circumcised because that is what the religion
> teaches? Boys and girls alike? Surely one can appreciate that there
> are no black and white instances. Do parents get to decide for their
> own children? Always? Should the state have no responsibilities to
> ensure a solid education?
>
>> Dawkins wants to overturn this, and he is using unworthy arguments by
>> trying to pick out the
>> worst examples of religion and then broadbrush all the same. His main
>> arguments seem to be
>> religious violence (ignoring Marxist and other violence) and fear of
>> hell. Now I don't teach any
>> violence to my children, but I have on a few occaisions mentioned to my
>> children about the "dark
>> place" (where I could not avoid it), or I have said that it is sad when
>> people don't get to know God
>> when they have died. I never paint any pictures that would be terrifying
>> to children. Dawkins
>
>
>> would have us believe that all Christian truth is horrifying to children,
>> and he does so as a
>> strategy, because that is the **wedge** (like the ID "wedge") that he is
>> using to convince society
>
> There you go again, making presumptions about what Dawkins beliefs,
> when in fact his position is far more subtle, and perhaps often lost
> on listeners and readers.
>
>
>> to take freedoms away from religious people as a class and put education
>> of children more
>> completely into the hands of a secularized state. He is also using the
>> "labeling" argument about
>> children as another wedge to try to take freedom away from religious
>> families.
>
> I understand your fears but they are creations of your own more than
> based on the reasoned position of Dawkins.
>
>> He is a sad, sick, evil man. I have no problem in stating this obvious
>> fact.
>
> Your viewpoint of him shows such a man and yet, it seems to be mostly
> a creation of your own mind.
> Unless we can find the strength to try to understand Dawkins and
> correctly represent his position, we will be doomed to lose the
> argument.
>
> <quote>Here at Oxford, we teach students not to base generalisations
> on one anecdote. We also teach them to admit it if they are
> conclusively shown to be wrong. 'New' Labour? You'll be really new if
> you now depart from all political precedent and apologise.</quote>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,319461,00.html
>
> As to his position on 'christian child'
> http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=350176
>
> <quote>"Religion should be something for children to choose or not
> when they become old enough to do so," Dawkins said. "The child is not
> [naturally] a Christian child, but a child of Christian</quote>
>
>
> Moorad:
>
>>I certainly cannot prove the existence of God. The Christian faith is
> based on the truth of certain
>> historical events, viz., the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
>> Faith, with its
>> accompanying doubt, is an integral part of being a Christian. However,
>> Dawkins claims that God
>> does not exist; otherwise why call oneself an atheist.
>
> Seems that you are not very familiar with what Dawkins really claims.
> In fact, I'd say that your position based on a strawman, somewhat
> undermines your credibility as you seem to be arguing against what you
> believe Dawkins' position is.
>
>
>> He is certain about it; otherwise why write the God Delusion book. Tell
>> me who is the one
>> intoxicated with pride, Dawkins or a Christian?
>
> If you were to ask Dawkins, probably neither one. However, lest we
> forget the original argument about truth, we should consider what
> Dawkins is telling us. Pride comes in many shapes and forms, and we
> should make an effort to not let our pride lead us to make assertions
> and accusations which are just unsupportable by fact, or at least have
> remained unsupported.
>
> Remember your claim?
>
> <quote>The benefits of Christianity, as you pose it, is the truth
> nature of it. Dawkins is burning with pride, the Great Sin, by
> claiming to know that Christianity is false.</quote>
>
> Your 'logic' and 'argument' suffers from an unsupported assertion
> about the truth nature of Christianity and a somewhat dubious claim
> about Dawkins and his position on Christianity. I believe that
> Dawkins' position is better stated as "there is as much evidence to
> support faith in fairies as there is in a god, any god". Does he claim
> that christianity is false? Or is his position a little more subtle?
>
>
> The Christian truth is true for you, and Dawkins has no problems with
> such a position, as he explained to O'Reilly. Dawkins also reminded us
> that some consider atheists to be evil, devilish creatures and are
> quick to stereotype atheists.
> Let me ask you a question: Do you think that a self professed atheist
> stands much chance in this country to run for public office?
> President? What does that tell us?
>
> And here I am, again feeling compelled to defend Dawkins not because I
> agree with his position but because I see how people are making
> uninformed claims about Dawkins.
>
>
> For instance on the existence of God
>
> <quote>Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
> cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I
> live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
> </quote>
>
> and
>
> <quote>A friend, who was brought up a Jew and still observes the
> sabbath and other Jewish customs out of loyalty to his heritage,
> describes himself as a 'tooth fairy agnostic'. He regards God as no
> more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either
> hypothesis, and both are equally improbable. He is an a-theist to
> exactly the same large extent that he is an a-fairyist. And agnostic
> about both, to the same small extent.
> </quote>
>
>
> Compare for instance what Dawkins wrote and how it was portrayed:
>
> <quote>IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left
> and right would not have found the idea of designer babies
> particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used
> that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for
> comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is
> responsible for the change.
>
> Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single
> particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray
> from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is
> even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for
> running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be
> impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic
> ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities"
> apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in
> practice.
>
> I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at
> least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for
> musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it
> is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed
> them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would
> probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should
> stop being frightened even to put the question?</quote>
> http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php
>
> versus
>
> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
> Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics
> Says Nazi regime's genocidal project "may not be bad"
>
> See how uninformed we must look to a third party observer.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 29 21:13:55 2007