A bizarre court case in the US could see a 40 year old substitute teacher sentenced to 40 years jail. She was convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor. The injuries came about when a PC she was using in class suddenly started showing pornographic images. The prosecution contended that the teacher, Julie Amero, has been using the computer to surf for naughty images. Amero contends that she was a victim of spyware (SunbeltBLOG has more on the case).
Reading through commentary on the issue, it does seem that Amero was the victim of a spyware infested PC not to mention the puritanical mindset of the prosecution.
A possible 40 years for accidentally showing children images of nekkid people is incomprehensible but not surprising in a country that lost its collective mind over a bare nipple.
I do wonder what those who have apoplexy over nude photos would make of the idea that religion is more harmful to children.
That is what Dawkins contends in the course of The God Delusion. Dawkins argues that exposure to religion when a child can cause psychological trauma. He relates the testimony of adults he has met who have suffered psychologically as a result of religious indoctrination when they were children. The way in which he made his point was rather infamous:
Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn’t Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that’s a fairly common experience.
The longer piece is a diatribe against the Catholic Church. Regardless of whether that diatribe is deserved, Dawkins is insensitive and offensive in trying to quantify which type of abuse is worse. It weakens Dawkins’ argument regarding religion as a form of mental abuse (a problem with The God Delusion as Dawkins does tend to take a “damn the torpedoes” approach with his rhetoric). And while Dawkins has a point in regards how the idea of hell can traumatise children, his last point that it is a “fairly common experience” is debatable. I grew up Catholic, as many friends did, and survived it just fine. However the testimony of various people that survived cults shows that indoctrination is sometimes not without its harm.
Like the bogeyman and Santa Claus, most kids soon grow out of such fears as they do the notion of hell. The fact that some don’t is not evidence of a widespread problem. However it does raise the issue of whether it is better to tell children how to think rather than what to think (a point Dawkins does make with which I agree).
It is unlikely that accidental exposure to pornography is going to injure children. They can be hardy souls. The worst damage likely will be the parents embarrassment in answering questions about the facts of life.
Since the Bible is full of rape, incest, child-murder, sodomy and such like- shouldn’t Christian parents who expose their children to the Bible face 40 years in jail?
Is anything more perverse that Leviticus?
Not sure why you head off into a critique of Richard Dawkins, Shaun, which is a bit off what I thought was going to be your main topic…
The thing is, that even deliberate brief exposure of a class of kids to pictures of naked people in a classroom (note: different from one or two kids in private!) should hardly constitute grounds for life imprisonment in any sane legal system. Multiply so if the exposure is accidental. And particularly in a country where a lot of people don’t see anything wrong with invading other countries, bombing, shooting and raping them to hell, and exposing the kids of those countries to real naked people who aren’t even in one piece any more. And where the people who are ultimately responsible for this are unlikely ever to be punished.
The mores of the USA’s judiciary are evidently as evil and twisted as those of its legislature. They really are a threat to themselves and the rest of the world until they resolve their issues with sex and violence.
Of course, if this twistedness and hypocrisy is genuinely inspired by religion, rather than political ideology, mass stupidity, Something In The Water, or brainworms, then I am afraid that Dawkins stands absolutely vindicated.
I’ve been intending to do a series of posts on Dawkins after finishing The God Delusion. I wrote a draft last night that was an extended version of the second half of this one, remembered the Amero case and thought that a contrast on how sex and religion are percieved to affect children would be an interesting discussion.
Steve, Dawkins does rip into the Old Testament during the course of The God Delusion and is one of the best passages of the book.
The idea of Hell is supposed to traumatise children for their own good. Not to put too fine an edge on it, but that’s the benevolent point. Nightmares and the assorted unpleasantry of being a human infant are religion- and age-independent; the anxious children of atheists simply find other things about which to obsess, and most definitely not grow out of. You carry your phobia to your graves, most of you. Spiders, perhaps, or drowning, or clowns, or the creepy smile of Uncle Moustache, or… or… well, I hear global warming is big these days. Whatever yours is, you find yourself today a blog-reading adult with all the irrational terrors of childhood—suck it up, mortals.
Anything more perverse than Leviticus, Steve? How about youth beauty pageants?
Those of you who smoke cigarettes might be familiar with the secular successor to damnation and hell-fire in the mass-consumer age: the packet-pictures of the squishy entarred lungs, rotten teeth and gangrene. Pathetic that the mediæval humans had to have infinite suffering in eternity waved at them, while you modern folk are petrified by the inevitable ugliness of old age. Bah.
Are you better off choosing life, private health insurance and modern dentistry? The choice, as they say chez moi, est a vous.
The repeated references in the old testament to stoning to death, sometimes for trivial offences, is enough to traumatize any believer. But traumatized or not, it is simply daft to believe what Catholic and other christians religions asked you to believe, or in some cases demand you believe.
It is a form of abuse to impose some of that nonsense on children.
The obvious point is that the American judiciary might jail here for 40 years for that while the death of 655,000 Iraqis raises barely a whimper.
I found Dawkins’ arguments about the perversity of indoctrinating children into religion some of the most compelling in TGD, and his objections to labelling children “Christian” or “Muslim” or “Jewish” were made beautifully with an example that had me in stitches at the absurdity of it.
I was raised Catholic as well, Shaun, and without delving into psychoanalysis, I think Catholicism has a lot to answer for for creating fear and guilt in children which can haunt them well into their adult lives (thankfully most survive largely unscathed). No doubt other Christian and non-Christian faiths produce similar harmful hang-ups.
Further, indoctrinating children into religion, taking them to temple, church, etc., sending them to religious schools, militates against reason and rational inquiry. Students at religious schools are never encouraged to make up their own minds about religion. Dawkins takes the knife to religious schooling in particular, and while I don’t know if he hits the nail on the head by suggesting that the end of religious schooling in Northern Ireland would end the troubles, he makes a powerful point about the divisive creation of “us” and “them” that religious upbringing and education foster.
Clearly the Amero case is preposterous, especially given the level of pornography children see, often unwittingly, on television or on the internet. Have any studies been done about how much “risk to a minor” flashing a few pornographic images can do? And how would it compare to the harm from, say, images of violence? If Amero had (even purposefully) shown the students violent scenes from some mainstream Hollywood cops-and-robbers movie instead, would it have reached this point?
The devil sometimes speaks truth, the say…
That is a good point and I pondered a post on what rights do parents have to raise a child as being “Muslim”, Christian” etc. I was thinking of this article concerning the Exclusive Brethren as being very relevant.
Dawkins did surprise me around this point in the book as being critical of the Amish but failing to mention rumspringa.
I read the Exclusive Brethren article, Shaun, but I think you’re right – Dawkins as usual (and I get a bit tired of having to point it out – some people on this thread who have a reflex attitude against religion should stop and apply some actual rationality to the weakness of his arguments) is tarring the many with the behaviour of the few.
For instance, DM refers to his argument about Northern Ireland. The problem there is that students aren’t in schools that are mixed – which perpetuates division. It has nothing much to do with the education they receive there which is largely the state curriculum. In any case, many Catholics oppose the violence that characterises “the troubles”. I have no doubt many Protestants do as well. If he applied some reasoning to the history of the place, he’d realise that religion masks deeper social and political causes of the conflict.
DM
“Students at religious schools are never encouraged to make up their own minds about religion”
But they often do make up their own minds. There was this story about Gough Whitlam who was refused the Divinity Prize at high school, even though he had the top mark, because he did not believe.
I have two children (14 and 10), and it worries me not at all that they learn something about Christianity. It would only worry me if they started to reject evolution.
And/or decided to support the Manly Sea Beagles. Oh, what nightmares a parent to be can conjure.
I am amused by the pronunciation ‘haitch’ for the letter H which Australian Catholics of Irish descent use to identify each other. It is a shibboleth that is taught in Catholic primary schools, particularly Marist Bros.
How does a Catholic spell ‘hell’? Haitch-ee-douible-ell, and they spell it more often.
Shaun,
I am not sure what to make of your comment, but I imagine you are trying to be funny. Maybe you are funny.
However, they are some very good reasons for teaching children how to weigh up evidence and come to rational decisions. It would worry me a great deal if they could not do that.
And that is the big problem with religion. Not the daft beliefs, but the inculcation of irrational decision making.
I agree Mark. I must say that while I find his arguments highly entertaining, after seeing Dawkins in the teev I think he’s a bit creepy and weird.
Fundamentalist Atheism. Fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Maoism (Oh sorry. There’s no other sort). Go figure.
You both mis-judge Dawkins I believe.
There is ample evidence that he would agree with you. He is giving a pespective as an evolutionary biologist.
There is a methodology at work behind what he is saying.
silkworm, I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I’m getting sick of your gratuitous sneers against Catholics.
Jade, Christine is right – Dawkins is the mirror image of those he decries – he’s also a fundamentalist.
Jade, I was being flippant. Not sure where you are from but it was a reference to NRL rivalry with me being an Eels supporter. I do agree with your comments.
Mark,
You might believe that, but the evidence would be against you. In fact very strongly against you.
I don’t know that I have every come across a scientist who is so tolerant of other views, and recognises so clearly the way different perspectives mould our beliefs
Shane,
Thanks for your comment. I now see what you are saying. Forgive me for being so slow.
Jade, I’m a bit too tired to go into it all right now, but I set out and defended my view of Dawkins at some length on this post and the ensuing thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/12/15/delusional-gods/
Surely one of the defining characterisitcs of a “fundamentalist” is that he/she ignores evidence contrary to his/her position. I don’t think this can said to apply to Dawkins at all.
Beej,
You are of course absolutely correct. And you will find that Dawkins greatly appreciates the views of those who disagree. Furthermore, Dawkins never ever says, I am right and my opponents are wrong.
He would never ever make a statement about his opponents, like Mark for example makes about Dawkins.
But the Dawkins is a scientist versed in rationality. To some extent that might be his failing.
Mark,
I have read your review. And at first I wonder whether we were talkin about the same book.
I don’t agree with you.
It did occurr to me that you might not have read the 6 or 7 books that lead to The God Delusion. Of course I don’t presume to judge whether you did
If not, I would just point out it would be like trying to understand the Wealth of Nations without first reading Moral Sentiments. But we all know where that sort of approach took economists
The two of you don’t seem too keen on examining the evidence that Mark just presented. You know, the evidence that he himself is not a dangerous fundamentalist. Perhaps you could read what he has to say before writing him off so casually.
Shaun, as it happens i was just photoshopping aformentioned Jackson breast flesh last nite for catallaxy’s silly sheik thread. The final result was a bit average, so i’ve held off on posting it today to see if I can grab a sec to fix it…
btw: i must mention to Mr al-Hilali (and anyone else who gets a makeover by the cowgirl), I’m laughing with you, not at you….
Good Catholics are obliged to attack Dawkins, as he is the greatest opponent of thier faith.
Hi Anne,
You talking to me.
Oh, don’t be silly, silkworm. I don’t think the Catholic faith is in any danger from Dawkins. What offends me is the weakness of his arguments, which I demonstrated at great length on the previous thread Anna’s been kind enough to refer to.
But Mark, it would not appear from that review that you knew what was behind Dawkins arguments. Now I amy be wrong, I grant that, and I may have totally misjudged you.
But there was not an indication in that review that you understood what had come before.
Silkworm,
If you will allow a serious observation from a simple cowgirl:
it seems your issues with the Catholic church run deep. You’re not alone and a great many (or alternatively, many great) people have been profoundly hurt, abused, screwed over or simply duped by individuals in, and the insitution of, the catholic church. I dont think anyone here denies this.
Yes its a flawed and messy creature but i am thinking that perhaps it may be the case that until your rage and anger against it dissapears, or you are able to channel it into constructive pursuits, you are, in many ways allowing yourself to be further defined by your relationship to (and against) it, and it continues to exert influence over who you are.
Jade, no, I haven’t read all of Dawkins’ work. But I don’t think that detracts from the points I made (and much of it was made in the comments thread) about the logical inconsistency of many of his arguments.
Your post is as contrived as it is wrong, Shaun! Somehow you’ve paired two unconnected events and attempted to prove Dawkins right. You seem to be slipping closer towards his position.
As for the report of the case you posted, the maximum for the ‘porn’ offense is 40 years, which I agree is dreadful, although probably targeted at more serious crimes, but it’s in no way probable that she’ll go down for that long, and we’ve yet to see the degree of leniency or otherwise, of the judge. I couldn’t see any reference to ‘puritan’ ideals in the piece. I didn’t see mention of Christians, or the Bible, or even church. Is there something you can show us which points to this conclusion?
You imply that Christians have a problem with ‘the flesh’! Dear Lord, please get over it! We’re living in the 21st century! Here in the heat of Darwin we Christians see a fair portion bare ‘flesh’, including in church meetings, and I don’t see people going into sexual convulsions over it. It’s just life! Maybe there was a time when peoipole were affected by skin, but I think we’ve grown up aa bit! Plus, mamas, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, breast feeding children during the meetings is part of our culture. I don’t see people being offended otr upset by this totally natural occurence! I think maybe you are a throwback to your own puritanical hangups.
Like Dawkins you know nothing about modern Christianity, yet you purport to know how we think, and how we react. He’s the nightmare-monger. His view of what we are and think is his own living hell. It’s a figment of his own imagination, and now he’s sucking people like you into his void.
Now Mark writes some very good things on here, but I would guess that this was probably the worst piece that Mark has written. It is nothing more than a set of unsubstantiated assertions that would get less than 5/10 in a Philosphy I paper.
I give just two examples
1. “Dawkins is both stuck in a nineteenth century mindset where science and religion are incompatible rather than incommensurable, and also an awfully illogical mindset which wrongly assumes because some religious people are violent or nutty then religion itself must be the cause of human misery ”
2. There’s no difference in logical structure between Dawkins’ arguments and those of the civilisational warriors who want to damn all Muslims and Islam itself because some claim Islam as an inspiration for violence.
The second statement is just funny. Both statements are the exact opposite of what Dawkins has stood for over a long an prestigious academic career. His science is very different from the science of the19th century, and he takes great pains to put out the brilliance and cleverness of the theologians that came before.
An interesting point… but personally I’m still glad we moderns have gotten over the Old Testament (enough of us at least). The OT tells me that I and several generations of my offspring are cursed simply because my parents weren’t married when I was born. So if I accepted the Bible at its word I would have a
doubledose of original sin on my conscience. And I would probably despise my parents. Thankfully, I’m one of those ‘moderns’ who only have to contend with phobias such as lung cancer and spiders… which are both fairly easy to deal with.I should clarify… lung cancer isn’t easy to deal with if you actually have it. But reducing the risk of getting it significantly is within one’s power.
I’m not particularly impressed by arguments from authority like Dawkins’ “prestigious academic career”, Jade, but I’m not going to get into it again except to say that I substantiated the assertions in the comments thread. Having been an academic for ten years myself, I’m well aware of what it takes to get good marks in a philosophy essay. But that’s not what I was writing. I was writing a blog post. You could try to be less patronising in your criticism.
You trying to give up the fags again, Cliff?
Facelift
You write
“Like Dawkins you know nothing about modern Christianity, yet you purport to know how we think, and how we react. He’s the nightmare-monger. His view of what we are and think is his own living hell. It’s a figment of his own imagination, and now he’s sucking people like you into his void.”
I assume that you understand what Dawkins thinks and you are not falling into the very trap that you think, mistakenly I might add, Dawkins has fallen into.
I assume you also have read, undestood, the 6 or 7 books that precedent the God Delusion. I also assume you understand the great admiration Dawkins has for many theologicans. I hope I am not mistaken.
You seem to know a lot about what others think and know.
I don’t see at all why it’s necessary for Facelift or I to have read all Dawkins’ work to be critical of The God Delusion.
steve munn,
No, the world is full of rape, incest, child-murder, sodomy and such like! The Bible merely reports it, reminds us that it’s our fault, and God makes a way to avoid it, save us from itand forgive us for it, but the world, regardless, continues with the rape, incest, child-murder, sodomy and such like!
By your logic, parents should be locked up for leaving the daily newspaper within reading distance, or allowing kids to watch the news on TV!
If the teacher was proven to be guilty of negligence in allowing children to view, not just human bodies, or skin, or flesh, but adults engaged in sexual acts, without parental permission or knowledge, then she will face some kind of rebuke or correction. Shaun is advocating a kind of liberality where anything goes. That is so filled with dangers that very few parents would agree.
Mark,
You write
“Iâm not particularly impressed by arguments from authority like Dawkinsâ âprestigious academic careerâ?, Jade, but Iâm not going to get into it again except to say that I substantiated the assertions in the comments thread. Having been an academic for ten years myself, Iâm well aware of what it takes to get good marks in a philosophy essay. But thatâs not what I was writing. I was writing a blog post. You could try to be less patronizing in your criticism.”
I apologize if that post seemed patronizing. It was not meant to be. I do admire what you have to say. And your writing unlike many of our journalist from both the left and the right is honest and written with integrity. But no your assertions do remain unsubstantiated
But on this issue, you have no chance, none whatsoever, of understanding what Dawkins is saying without going back to see the path he is following.
If had to sum up in a single sentence the message from Dawkins it is this: ” I do not know whether a God exists or not, but I believe that on the balance of probabilities, atheism is a better bet than agnosticism.”
Having read Dawkins, like you I remain unconvinced. I am happy to continue my agnostic life Further, I am quite confident no evidence will be produced either way in my life time.
Just one further point. You ought not to fall into the trap of being impressed with either Dawkins or your own Academic career. I am sure you would be one of the first not to dismiss what I write just because I may have been a concretor
Facelift,
The Old Testament is an imperfect history of the Jewish Race. It is partly fact, partly myth, and partly arrant nonesense.
On principle, I believe that if a writer can’t make their points clearly understandable in a single piece of work (whether it be an essay, an opinion piece or a book) without the reader having a broad familiarity with their earlier work, then that writer should go back over their piece and draft their writing better before they present it to the world.
Of course, all writers develop their worldview and arguments over the years and tracing the path of their development is a fascinating critical exercise. But insisting that one cannot even have a chance of evaluating a stand-alone piece of writing without absorbing an entire back-catalogue? Sorry, jetlagged bollocks to that.
Tig tog
You can’t divorce what you know from how you go about knowing it.
I hope, Jade, applying your own standards, that you’ve read all 66 books! Interestingly, your description of the OT perfectly matches Dawkin’s warped philosphy of Christians, who actually come under the New Testament rather than the Old.
In fact, it may have been more accurate to say that the OT is a history of the imperfect Jewish race, but, having said that, it is actually far more than historical, or about Israel, it’s also a prophetic view of the state of humanity. the Jewish race has a role to play, in that it was God’s chosen vessel to bring forth a Saviour, but His task was to deliver the whole world, not just Israel.
Face Lift,
And how do you know that?
Face Lift
I was commenting on the OT not the NT.
I know because
1. the OT does talk of the Jewish Race, and is history confirmed from other sources
2. The myth part is not confirmed, but has all the qualities of myth
3. Genesis and bits about the Great Flood do not conform with the common understanding of what could happen.
Do I claim absolute knowledge? No – I am uncertain about all things, and in the end you may be right and I may be wrong. But on the evidence before me, my guess it things are as I stated.
Because I know God! Do you?
Jade, you point towards an idealistic position of reading every book ever written in order to trace back how the author’s views were influenced, and how those influences were influenced in turn. How would anything else ever get done?
Despite the inevitable illumination thrown on later works by reading earlier pieces, demanding that level of reader attention smacks of arrogance. There comes a point where the author has a responsibility to clarify his views sufficiently in each piece without reference to earlier works and other influences. If the arguments are not clear, that’s an authorial shortcoming more than a readerly one.
As an example of clarifying positions, I will here state that I don’t believe Dawkins himself has the arrogance to demand that readers be familiar with his earlier work in order to adequately evaluate his latest publications. That seems to be your own peculiar stance.
Tigtog
You write
“But insisting that one cannot even have a chance of evaluating a stand-alone piece of writing without absorbing an entire back-catalogue? Sorry, jetlagged bollocks to that. ”
But I don’t insist. But it makes sense to know how he came to that conclusion. And Mark’s extraordinary misinterpretation of what Dawkins says, what he believes and the extraordinary admiration Dawkins has for many Christian theologians, just provides further evidence for what I say.
I doubt if there was ever a great scientific work written which you could appreciate without understanding the background to that work. That goes for Newton’s Principia, Darwin’s Evolution, John Stuart Mills Principles, Einstein’s Relativity, Keynes’ General Theory, etc etc etc.
Unfortunately the world, jet lagged or not, is not like that.
Sorry, but you are mistaken.
You can never divorce what you know from how you came to know it.
Absolutely not, Jade, but it was you who were appealling to Dawkins’ career as some sort of guarentee of his views. I’m happy to accept that mine might be wrong, and to listen to arguments as to why they might be. I think being open minded and open to persuasion are far more important than any sort of dogmatism.
Tigtog
You write
“As an example of clarifying positions, I will here state that I don’t believe Dawkins himself has the arrogance to demand that readers be familiar with his earlier work in order to adequately evaluate his latest publications. That seems to be your own peculiar stance. ”
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. And you are perfectly correct he would not. And neither would I.
But even a partial knowledge of the basis of Dawkin’s thinking would help.And that would have prevented misinterpretation of what Dawkins was saying.
But Dawkins needs no defenders. I would not presume to defend him myself. In any case I don’t agree with him either. But he is nothing like what is being described here. And really what is being said is rather funny.
It is below the standar of this site
Mark,
Thanks for that – and you are correct.
Jade, if you don’t know what the NT is about, you’ll never grasp the OT. The new replaced and confirmed the old. The old is a mystery. The new is the revelation, but you won’t grasp either without knowing God.
Jade, perhaps if you would be so kind as to summarise for us what your view is of Dawkins’ trajectory rather than ask us to go and read the books (which as tigtog rightly said, we probably don’t have time for and it shouldn’t be necessary for understanding his views), that might clarify the point you’re making.
Dawkins on the Reverend Paley.
“Paley begins Natural Theology with a famous passage:
“A quote well know about Paley’s watch
“Paley appreciates the difference between natural physical objects like stones, and designed objects like watches… that watch must have had a maker…
…
” Nobody could reasonably dissent form this conclusion…Paley drives his point home with beautiful and and reverent descriptions of the dissected machinery, beginning with the human eye, a favourite example which Darwin was later to use..
“Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong..
“I shall explain all this, and much else besides. But one thing I shall not do is belittle the wonder of the living ‘watches’ that so inspired Paley. On the contrary, I shall try to illustrate my feeling that Paley could have gone further. When it comes to feeling awe over living watches I yield to nobody. I feel more in common to the Revered William Paley that I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well known atheist ……”
Dawkins admired Paley and many of the great theologians who came before, but as a scientist he is interested in the search for truth….
Facelift
We come from different directions and are following a different path. We ‘know’ different things in different ways.
I do not wish to dissuade you from your ‘faith’. But I am sorry, I cannot share it.
Jade, but as I was trying to explain in my arguments about the philosophical proofs for the existence of God on the other thread, arguments like those of Paley don’t necessarily lead to faith. They’re rationalistic justifications which were themselves a response to the way in which religion was dethroned as “first cause” and the backdrop to all thought in early modernity. This is where I think Dawkins is making a profound error – religion and rationality are not opposed because the springs of faith are not philosophical arguments but a lived encounter with the divine.
Anyway, it’s past my bed time.
Mark,
That is very kind of you. But I think you already understand my view now. I would not be so presumptious to suggest I can summarise fairly the life time work of such a prolific writer. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He is a very kind and thoughtful person who is an idealist and apparently wants to leave the world a better place than he found it. He clearly does not believe the world is determined soley by evolutionary biology. He does not believe that human misery is caused by religion alone. If I referred to his academic position, I really meant that nobody in his position would think that religion or anything else is the sole cause of human misery or anything. He is not a fundamentalist.
But he does believe that evolutionary biology does explain how we came to be. He does believe that we do not need a God to explain that bit. He goes further, than I think he is entitled to. He believes, on the basis of evidence we now have, and on the balance of probalities there is no God.
Well, I don’t think that we need God to explain how we came to be, either, Jade, and I’m more than happy to accept evolutionary biology. But it doesn’t exclude God, except for those who believe it’s incompatible with a literal(ist) reading of scripture. But the Catholic Church has never believed scripture is a text to be read literally, and Pope John Paul II and quite a few of his predecessors were happy to emphasise that evolution was not incompatible with faith.
This is my problem with these sorts of discussions – they tend to assume that all religions take a position which opposes science to faith. That’s not so, and it need not be so. Religion itself, I’d argue, is diminished when it’s seen as a substitute Cosmology.
This is the sort of thing I take issue with, though:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13688.html
That’s from an interview with Dawkins.
Although he qualifies it a little bit, I think there’s enough evidence around to show that violence and inhumanity wouldn’t vanish in the absence of religion. To suggest that they would implies that he ascribes violence and inhumanity primarily to religion, which as I’m suggesting is a claim that rests on a very narrow view of history and human action.
Anyway, this is a long way from Shaun’s post, and it really is past my bed time now.
Mark,
But he does qualify, maybe not enough for you, but he does qualify.
I understand where you are coming from and I believe, based on his previous writings he would substantially agree with your criticism. He may put more weight on the checkered path of religion than you do, but I believe he is well aware that poverty, inequality of income, the lust for power, and many other human weaknesses would ensure violence and hatred is part of the world we have.
The weakness in is his argument is that you would not have many of the good things that religion has done, either. You may not have the Mother Teresa’s of the world. And I have not seen him answer that criticism anyway. Maybe he has, I don’t know
But I believe that the weakness in your argument here is that you are treating his statement as fundamentalist. Suppose the interviewer then ask Dawkins what would we lose if we lost religion. And then the interview could I contend go down a different path. But who knows.
My point would be that there is a lot left out of this interview, and I would contend in the case of Dawkins what’s left out is far more important than what’s included. I would not make feel the same with an interview with our dear old Sheik although then again that may be just a bias on my part and I could be entirely wrong
As to the conflict between religion and science, I have often puzzled over this myself. I have no answers except to say that they come to different conclusions by different methods. One looks for evidence – the other does not. One seeks assumes uncertainty, the other assumes certainty. One leads to progress the other to dogma.
FL,
While I glad that Darwinian Christians can handle bare flesh, can you please show where I’m painting ALL Christians with the broad brush of public minded puritan ideals?
You may want to read my post again.
Breaking from the present stream of comments…
This post reminds me of the furore surrounding an American parenting magazine which showed a baby breastfeeding on the cover. It was a tasteful photo, no nipple, just a loving gaze from a happy baby. Apparently some women said it made them feel sick! Gotta really wonder about the kind of mindset which produces that reaction.
I have done a more detailed post here.
Boobies are dangerous!
Re Jade’s last comment regarding science v religion, Dawkins does cover that but it is something that has been stoushed before at LP. I’m not intending to cover that ground again as an old post of mine still reflects my views.
I quite liked the chapter on the the evolution of morality in TGD and will post on that soon. However there is a little nitpick that I need to get out of my system tonight re Dawkins and ‘liberals.’
Shaun,
Thanks for that link. I liked that post on science versus religion.
“There was this story about Gough Whitlam who was refused the Divinity Prize at high school, even though he had the top mark, because he did not believe.”
At last a parable that might be used in a discussion on how religious doctrination damages children and how that damage gets multiplied through a wider society.
Mark is right, believing that religeon was the cause of sectarian violence (9/11, Northern Ireland were examples given) and not just a matter of power is as much a fundamentalist article of faith as any other. Religeon may have been the clothes they chose to wear in the sectarian violence (sects only exist so we can identify each other).
Does anybody really think that Islamic fundamentalism is anything more than a tool for wahabists to use in fighting the ever encroaching changes of the modern world, changes that those old men see as benefiting others at their own cost? Is Islamic fundamentalism not the dying spasms of a culture (as it is currently formed) becoming extinct? It won’t become extinct of course, it will adapt and in the case of the vast majority of moderates already have adapted. In some westerns you see the loser in the gunfight struggle up with his dying breathe and put a fatal shot into the victor who was distracted by the spoils of victory. Another useful parable.
Equity? What rational person would think that could be acheived? And yet people believe and blessed are they.
Unfortunately, not everyone has the time or the patience to become a hermeneuticist everytime they want to read a piece of popular non-fiction. Dawkins’ book is a stand alone work, obviously intended for popular consumption and persuasion. If he didn’t have the sense to at least try to make explain himself sufficiently within the book itself, then he has no-one to blame but himself. We have enough trouble reading all the works of thinkers and writers whom we admire, let alone those who we don’t. You should cut Mark some slack on that point, in my opinion.
Indeed… faith is there or it isn’t. I doubt it can be reasoned into existence. I don’t have it, Mark does. So be it. We shouldn’t forget either that rationality is a tricky an plastic concept that is dependent upon frameworks and information that are not necessarily rational themselves.
Very good point, Cliff.
I think the biggest qualm with Dawkins I have is not so much his imagining a world without religion (after all, I like Lennon’s “Imagine”)… but the idea that we could be rid of religion. It’s an incredibly utopian dream, in my opinion… which should not be taken seriously by anyone who actually wants make the world a better place. Dawkins poses a problem, the solution of which would likely be even more violent and irrational.
“I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq’s excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven’t been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum – you can’t understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. ”
Richard Dawkins
Of course, from a very different starting point, Lenin and Stalin tried to free the territory of the Soviet Union from religion – which certainly was both irrational and violent.
Clif are you sure you are quoting Dawkins correctly.
Cliff,
It is not necessary to read everything that an author has written. It would be impossible anyhow and where would you stop.
But you cannot divorce what you know from how you got about knowing it.
Cliff and Mark
Can I elaborate.
Suppose I say to you Red Star will win the third at Randwick on Saturday. It is a 100 to 1 shot so that $10 will get you $1000.
I doubt if you would rush out and put $10 on Red Star. But a normal response would be the question ‘How do you know that’. That is part of the common understanding.
If I say that Australia won the last test. How do you know. Saw it on the news last night. Now Australia might have won or might have lost, the news can be right on wrong, but that is how I know.
So back to Red Star. I know because my mate on the Golf Course told me. On that information your $10 does not look too good.
But if I also told you my mate was a jockey who was riding the odds on favourite, but …. he has just mortgaged his house and put $1.5 million on Red Star. Perhaps I do know.
You cannot pass judgment on Dawkins until you know how he knows. Yes Rationality is a tricky concept, and there is a metaphysical aspect to rationality which is untestable empirically. But that is even more true of religious belief. The very point you raise and Mark so feebly grasps at would be more damaging to religion than ever it would to science and rationality.
I went back over the interview and realize that he himself acknowledged the idea to be a pipe dream. But I do harbour some mistrust for people who speak of their ideal society as a “paradise on Earth” or talk in terms of “Enlightened Rationality”. The theological connotations of this kind of imagery should not be lost on someone presumably as intelligent as Mr. Dawkins. Indeed, this very criticism has been
made before, albeit not at Dawkins himself.Agreed… but surely, as a scientist, Dawkins would have presented his arguments in TGD clearly, in such a way that they could be relatively easily understood and independently reflected on or verified, without having to consider Dawkin’s personal history or bibliography. Of course we may benefit from a better understanding of the path Dawkins travelled to get to TGD… but again, that should not preclude a critical analysis of its arguments in isolation.
I’d have thought the “you have to read his other work to understand him” argument would be an uncomfortable one to make in defense of a scientist, given that to me it seems more at home in defense of figures like Hegel, Nietzsche or Heidegger. Certainly, you can’t read Zarathustra on its own… but I’d argue that Dawkins probably never intended his work to be read as such.
So you’re saying that Dawkins restricts TGD to making bare assertions, forcing his readers elsewhere to find how he justifies them?
Sorry, which point I’m “feebly” grasping at?
Mark,
The point about rationality being a tricky rational concept
Cliff
“So you’re saying that Dawkins restricts TGD to making bare assertions, forcing his readers elsewhere to find how he justifies them?”
No I am not, and he does not.
I don’t think you understand what we’re saying. Basically what we’re saying is that the will to scientific knowledge and religious belief spring from different aquifers. Granted, science has successfully undermined religious interpretations of natural phenomena and cosmology… and in that sense scientific rationality has successfully and commendably challenged religion. But such is the competent sphere of science. You have to understand that religion is not merely phenomenal… which is the realm of science and therefore where the battle between science and religion occurs. Religion is, at its core,
existential, and is fundamentally directed at man’s relationship with something beyond the merely phenomenal. A scientific atheist would say that this realm cannot be observed or measured, and therefore doesn’t exist. What he doesn’t understand is that it is precisely this unobservability and immeasurability of it that fuels the imagination of the faithful. This is what Mark means when he distinguishes between incompatibility and incommensurability… I think.Huh? Cliff’s point was that there are irrational grounds for some of the processes of rationality. In what way am I feebly grasping it? The whole question of the relationship of emotion to reason is a very complex one and could be approached from a number of different angles – philosophically, psychologically, etc. Does Dawkins spell out what his epistemology is?
This may be disputable… but nonetheless I’d argue that science would probably only replace religion completely is it discovers a cure for death.
It certainly seems a bit tricky for you at the moment, Jade. Anyone who would describe Mark’s subtle and nuanced position in this debate of being feeble should slowly back away and quit while they’re a mile behind. Dawkins would be embarrassed.
Thanks, Cliff, that’s nicely put and does capture my meaning. I’ll leave you to it and go and do some work!
Which Heidegger would argue (if he was alive to do so!) would make us no longer human.
Cliff
You write
“I went back over the interview and realize that he himself acknowledged the idea to be a pipe dream. But I do harbour some mistrust for people who speak of their ideal society as a âparadise on Earthâ? or talk in terms of âEnlightened Rationalityâ?. The theological connotations of this kind of imagery should not be lost on someone presumably as intelligent as Mr. Dawkins. Indeed, this very criticism has been made before, albeit not at Dawkins himself. ”
It is comments like that that riase this website way above the average. It is nicely and honestly said, and it happens that I fully agree with you – not that my agreement means much. There are no guarantess and we should harbour mistrust of Dawkins and everyone else. And as it turns out Dawkins, and all the greater thinkers, would probably agree with you as well. Richard Feyman, in a series of public lectures said something similar. Dawkins has not said the last word, and I would be astonished if he has got it right – more than astonished. But there in lies the difference between science and religion. The Deist knows he is right, the scientist only thinks he is right on the basis on probabilities.
Yeah… I’d better do some of that too.
Playing the man and not the ball again are we Anne. Lots of laughs
“but nonetheless I’d argue that science would probably only replace religion completely is it discovers a cure for death.
Which Heidegger would argue (if he was alive to do so!) would make us no longer human. ”
That is probably true than anything else, and even then I doubt if science would replace religion.
It would be nice if you could get my name right, Jade.
Quit patronising Mark, and perhaps you might get a higher level of respect. Who knows, you may even learn something from the very incisive thoughts he’s expressed on the issue that you seem to have no interest in contemplating.
Another important component of the scientific method is peer review and critical analysis.
Mark,
I believe Dawkins does, but not as well as a philosopher might. And yes I believe you are correct, but it applies to religious methodology even more so.
Back to the porn question and away from the god-bothering ones:
we’ve yet to see the degree of leniency or otherwise, of the judge – Facelift
The only ‘leniency’ that is appropriate here is a summary dismissal of the charge with a sneering “de minimis non curat lex”.
For the benefit Of Ms Winter
Quote
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) is a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument”
I never respond to this sort of argument. Mark needs no defenders and neither does Dawkins.
If you wish to join the discussion feel free.
But if you continue on the way you are going then you belong here more than I do. So bye
I would not know for sure but I suspect I have had many more years in peer review and the scientific method than you have even been alive. And for your information they are very different processes something which you ought to have been aware of almost as much as me
Mark, Clif,
I liked your comments but, Mark, a full life time in the sciences and social sciences and having served on the editoral board of a number journals I am as sure as I can be that your review of Dawkins book is unfair.
I am not really interested in the petty sniping of the Anna’s of the world, but I still believe that your Blog here is better than most of what is offering
I don’t intend to come back and waste energy trying to defend myself against that. However, I do believe that intellectual ideas, whether they are right or whether they are wrong are important. Indeed “the world is ruled by little else”
Best wishes to you
Jade
One may well in the end have the stronger argument, but sneering at others while reeling off verbose obfuscation is unlikely to have it well received.
For someone so patronising of others about understanding Dawkins’ arguments it’s more than a little disconcerting for you to make such an elementary error in theological terminology. Dawkins is criticising the ontologies, theodicies and dogmas of various Theists, not Deists, and he’s very well aware that the two are not synonyms.
Jade, your patronising attitude won’t be missed. Come back without it though, and you might be fun to have around.
Peaople may be interested in a lecture Dawkins gave in Philidelphia broadcast on the ABC last year.
There was also a Science Show devoted to TGD with contributions also from Templeton prize winners John Barrow and Paul Davies.