Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

Let's start with Wayne

>So, to conclude. Fine. Dawkins, like myself and like you, is an
intellectual. We enjoy thinking
> about things and how they should be and all that. But when it comes to application, I think we
> should be a little more reticent about the implementation of our opinions.

Excellent voice of reason and I am sure that there is a lot of common
ground found in your suggestion. After a weekend of despair, I finally
feel that I have reached some voices who appreciate and understand.

Pim

Some other responses follow

On 4/29/07, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>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.

Not really, just a certain hope that we carefully represent our
opponents and make an effort to understand him rather than portray him
as some (murderous) bogieman intent on exterminating not just religion
but also religious people. Engage Dawkins on his arguments and show
where he goes wrong.

>I stand by what I said earlier about Dawkins desire to stop parents from
> passing their beliefs onto their children.

And yet, the support for such a claim seems tenuous at best and
contradicted by what Dawkins is saying.

> 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

Not at all. What bothers me is people making claims about Dawkins
which are ill informed, contrary to his beliefs. If Dawkins makes
mistakes about aspects of beliefs, or anything then please expose him
but make sure that you first understand the context of his arguments.
If you believe that Dawkins is ill informed about certain beliefs then
expose them as such.

> 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.

I agree that Dawkins is quite transparent and yet people still feel
compelled to accuse him of positions he clearly does not hold.

Blake:
> The question then becomes what is R.D. really complaining about and what he really wants to
> be done about it, then we can discuss whether R.D. is reasonable in these matters or not.]

Excellent point, and in parts exactly what I have been trying to say here.

<quote>For his part, Dawkins has said he would remove all financial
support from Christian, Jewish, and Muslim schools and make them teach
atheism; prohibit hospital chaplains from solacing the ill; and
undertake other measures to combat the "infantile regression" of
religious belief. And what about parents who persist in telling their
children about religion? "It's probably too strong to say the state
should have the right to take children away from their parents,"
Dawkins told an interviewer. "But I think we have got to look very
carefully at the rights of parents-and whether they should have the
right to indoctrinate their children."</quote>

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1914

While they are wrong about teaching atheism, Dawkins supports
pantheism if anything, the question raised by Dawkins is a valid one:
rights of parents versus the rights of children.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 30 00:01:38 2007