Richard Dawkins, God and Santa Claus: Belief as a Form of Abuse

Having read much of Dawkins, I could see him saying that to make a point. He argues that religious people (Catholics in this example, but you could substitute Mormon) carry around much baggage. We (myself included, being religious) do carry around a lot of unmet expectations. I do feel that there are many areas of my life where I can improve. Utah (not necessarily a perfect proxy for Mormonism) has the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the country. This is the point he was making – that religion can cause long-term psychological damage. Whether this is true or not is up for interpretation. And whether this is better or worse than sexual abuse is certainly up for interpretation. But he does say things using hyperbole to make a point. Some other atheists don’t like his style either, suggesting he actually hurts their cause.

He also talks about the atrocities that have been put forth in the name of religion over the millennia (ie. Crusades, Jew vs Islam, Sunni vs Shi’ite, Hindu vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, etc.) Additionally, he talks about how the most likely indicator of what religion a child follows is not related to the “truth” of any particular religion, but where the child is born.

“Utah (not necessarily a perfect proxy for Mormonism) has the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the country.” and, of course, with the real statistics it is also noted to be the happiest state in the country.

Interesting, isn’t it.

I don’t know how I missed that Dawkins bit, as I read the God Delusion. Comparing the religious indoctrination of the young to abuse is one thing, but saying it is worse than sexual abuse is beyond belief. Please tell me this is out of context, because I cannot respect anyone that would hold such a view.

I get tired of the bellyaching about the hardship of living on planet earth sometimes. Is it abuse to be raised to believe in God? Is it abuse to be raised to not believe in God?

Let’s follow Richard Dawkins’ line of logic. Life is stressful with many events outside of our control. To deal with that, people created religions, so they could have the illusion of control (and hope). If those man-made illusions fail, is that abuse? It’s hyperbole to call it abuse. Life itself is abuse by this definition. Religion is how people deal with the hardship of life. That makes religion a coping mechanism, that BTW works for billions of souls who’ve lived. Even if there’s no God, religion has helped people focus, be more altruistic and tap into their own insight.

Believing in Richard Dawkins is a form of abuse! And, I would never quote Dawkins as an authoritive champion of what is right and wrong in the world. I think that parents who teach their children the writings of Dawkins are subjecting their children to the worst form of abuse there is or ever can be.

Wall Street Journal recently put out an interesting article on this topic:

The Power of Magical Thinking

On the dawkins issue, he sees the pain caused by belief as being linked to way that beief is lived, i.e. throughf ear of eternal damnation and the way it sets people against on another. But yes, i have no taken it out of context. The bigger point is that he sees belief as a form of abuse. If you have the book you can check the context as I have given the page number.

#7 – I am sure your right. His book is aimed at a particular market as the early part of the book sets-out. He wants to convert people to atheims, or perhaps more accurately to give people who already do not believe the confidece to admit it. So I think that him dealing with what he sees as the extremist postion on religion leads him to attack it with severe rhetoric.

#8 – Thank you Hawk. I agree, but putting on my dawkins hat, he might argue that with the enlightenment we no longer need to God for thohse things and so if he is retained why? To assert power and inculcate fear. My own life-position, as an aspiring academic in the UK, is cognisant of how God is used as a stick to beat ‘stupid’ people. There power and fear have led me to be less-open about my faith at work. Therefore the same argument works both ways.

#10 – There does not seem to be an argument in what you said, rather just the same type of rhetoric you seem to dislike. Why do you think this?

#13 – Thank you Andrew S for your expansion and thoughtful response. My question still remains, if God is not real, is there any benefit to believing in God, do we need God to be good or is it impossible to remove God form the cluster of meme’s that bring in fear and guilt?

#15 – I agree, and not just because we live in adjacent stakes. I certainly do not believe that Belief is as bad as sexual abuse. But could be a form of abuse. I think including that quotation from Dawkins was perhaps not wise in the context of the rest of the post. Moreover, I also do not believe that Dawkins himself would disagree with what you are saying, i think he senses that fewer people have the experience you describe while many have had the experience of being raised in a religion that inspires fear.

Regardless, I appreciate your comments.

re 14:

Rico, well, obviously, I don’t have a copy of the book in front of me, so I can’t just flip to that particular page :3

But to address the questions you specifically asked…I think Dawkins must say that there *is* a benefit to believing in God if God is not real. After all, if God is not real, then all of the benefits in believers’ lives must be a rather potent “placebo” (this isn’t to knock down the nature of spiritual experiences…rather, it elevates the placebo). However, I think what Dawkins would say next (and what most atheists would agree) is that even if this idea is good as a kind of “honing tool,” it is not a necessary tool. Particularly, we don’t need God to be good. Theoretically, it shouldn’t be impossible to remove God from the cluster of memes that bring with it fear and guilt…the problem is that religions aren’t quite like scientific endeavors, where the hope is to upend the previous “in hypothesis.” Even in revelatory religions like Mormonism, we still have this “stickiness” toward known, familiar doctrines rather than speedy progression, culling, and cutting.

And I think that when people *try* to do religion in a way that culls and cuts quickly, they end up losing something from religion. I mean, you have all of these amorphous liberal religions and their supporters, who seem not to get what the allure of God and religion was in the first place, so they reject any feasible resemblance of God and go for something that cannot even be described — although they will try their hardest to convince you that you should trust that THEY can and have adequately described it.

re 15,

gomez,

People live through guilt, shame, and fear, just as they live through sexual abuse. Don’t be so quick to deem one so *obviously worse* than the other just because it is physical, produces gruesome pictures, makes a big media show (that the media, of course, highlights upon every time), and even has spawned an entire series Law and Order just to cover it in all of its terrible forms. Don’t be so quick to say that the abuse from child abuse or the abuse from sexual abuse is the *only* thing that causes such rampant damage — even if it may appear to manifest in ways different than the ones you’ve listed.

re 17:

Arthur H.

“Hmm…if I could choose between slavery in 19th century America and being a child sweatshop laborer in today’s China, for some crazy reason I think I’d go with being a child sweatshop laborer. At least they earn *something* and medicine is at least *somewhat* available so that they don’t die from a disease that only exists in history books now.”

…I dislike Suffering Olympics. Taking two painful situations and trying to measure which is “worse” (often being biased to certain aspects of one or the other — e.g., people seem to care more about *physical* aspects and *visible* manifestations than internal ones, so it seems *obvious* that the former is worse than the latter) doesn’t make either situation desirable.

I think you should stick with your religious upbringing because you obviously don’t feel it was abusive. That is why you juxtapose “religious upbringing” — oh, how innocently phrased — with “institutionalized sexual abuse” — how egregious! (So I fully anticipate the risk that the first thing you’ll do, when seeing my comment is, is protest: “The comparison of sexual abuse to religious upbringing is *nothing* like slavery and child labor! You must be deluded.”) You might, like others, be baffled by the suggestion that it could be abusive, and maybe you even think that people who do think it to be abusive are just being “unreasonable,” or are being “whiners,” or are “making a mountain out of a molehill.” After all, no matter what happened in a church, it COULDN’T be worse than “institutionalized sexual abuse.”

To be sure, I believe I’ve gotten off pretty well, so I would keep the religious upbringing too. I’d definitely keep this alienation from everyone and continue to call it uniqueness. I’m not saying I necessarily *agree* with Dawkins’s argument…and not to the extent that he’s pushing it (so I guess “even reasonable atheists for some reason feel the need to qualify…it”). But all I’m saying is…I see plenty of people who I want to reach out and help them, but I can’t. They have already internalized whatever sludge they have gotten from their religious culture, and so trying to detach it from them (or encourage them to do so) seems too risky a task — it would kill them inside, and alienate them from the outside world as well, before it saved them.

re 19:

Rico,

And I mean, if we take something Dawkins has said (maybe in the book too, maybe just elsewhere) that it is “wrong” to “label” children (e.g., Christian child, etc.,), then I think that would relate. The labeling is part of what makes it painful to leave. Because you have all these role expectations that you are breaking when you leave. For some, it’s worse than others (love bombing, guilt tripping, social pariahdom, being kicked out of the house, etc.)

Let’s not forget that some religious teachings can exacerbate the pain of sexual abuse. The idea that any illicit sexual act inherently defiles the people involved or that there is some kind of purity that is lost creates inordinate guilt in an abused child. The abuser can twist the idea of chastity against the victim by convincing them that the abuse is consensual.

re 23:

AdamF, I actually would’ve never believed something like that until I saw it firsthand. I am still somewhat skeptical, but my sister and her friends in the gifted and talented classes have caught on to doing a particularly annoying thing…if they have struggle in some area (LOL, struggling in fifth grade? I REMEMBER THOSE DAYS), they just *won’t do anything*. They are so used to being “good at things” that they don’t even want to risk doing something and getting it wrong. And I don’t know if that’s better or worse than the others who, if they don’t get something, will come up with creative (at least, for fifth graders) ways to cheat to maintain appearances and keep the praise coming.

Of course, now everyone has to tell them how not doing anything at all gets you zeros (and cheating will get the same, if not worse). And zeros are way worse than whatever ego is bruised from having your work evaluated and corrected so that you can LEARN.

I think Andrew S makes some good points, and while it gives me a better idea what Dawkins is saying, I still disagree. Dawkins is arguing just as much against morality as he is against religion. Here are some of my thoughts why:
- Religion is the vehicle society uses to curb anti-social behavior. Laws are also used in this way, but there are behaviors that are difficult to legislate (or prove) that are still anti-social behaviors (meaning that they denigrate society or harm others).
- In a way, religion recognizes that there are not always appropriate consequences for bad behavior, so religion provides imaginary future consequences (sticks with which to beat stupid people, as Rico put it). These incentives are useful at curbing anti-social behavior for those who believe them.
- Children are not inherently good. While religion is only one method at keeping their homocidal and anti-social impulses at bay (using candy to reward good behaviors might be another), Dawkins’ argument implies that any manipulation of individual freedom (e.g. my freedom to harm you) toward social needs (e.g. a society of respect) is abusive. Religions certainly blunder at preserving society’s interests (e.g. by promoting tribalism), but to equate that with abuse is a ridiculous overstatement. Without man-made consequences, we’d get a Lord of the Flies situation pretty quickly – mostly I’m talking about children here, but that’s probably just because adults have gone through years of behavioral conditioning to societal norms.
- Shame and guilt are not the same thing. Shame is external – applying emotional manipulation through rejection. Guilt is internal – one feels bad for doing something one feels is wrong, whether the outcome was intentional or not. Shame can be abusive or not – again, society shames all the time through any behavior it strives to deter. There is a stigma associated with all anti-social behaviors.

Dawkins essentially calls all personal restrictions abuse, but that assumes that the universe (God?) will right all wrongs in the end, so it doesn’t matter. He must have some basic personal morality driving his assumptions, but he calls it abuse if someone imposes moralistic restrictions that differ from his own on anyone else. That’s just arrogance. But I’m sure we all do more or less the same. For example, if you are Catholic but not Muslim, you might think it’s abusive to encourage your daughter to wear a Burkha. If you are Muslim, but not Catholic, you might think it’s abusive to encourage your son to enter the Priesthood and be celibate for life. When encouragement or teaching turns to control, abuse begins to creep in.

re 26:

hawkgrrrl:

I think that Dawkins would necessarily also advocate for morality apart from religion. Even if it is a social construct, he would say that religion is not the only (nor the best) vehicle to use to curb anti-social behavior. So, to go through your points.

1) Is religion the BEST vehicle society can use to curb anti-social behavior? Note that your only two answers don’t have to be “law” and “religion.” I think what Dawkins would argue is that not only is religion not the best vehicle, but that the nature of religion makes it a particularly inefficient, slow-to-improve vehicle. I mean, our laws are slow-to-improve because Congress is Congress. Religion is slow-to-improve for entirely different factors (e.g., is this really a revelation from God? etc., etc.,)
2) These incentives *shouldn’t* be useful for a vast majority of people. People shouldn’t (and probably don’t) do the things they do because God says so. People who don’t murder don’t do it because God said murder is wrong. So, heaven or hell or anything in between are not what is “useful at curbing anti-social behavior for those who believe them.” Locks don’t keep out crooks…even “imaginary futury divine locks.”
3) I don’t know if Dawkins’s argument quite goes as you say it. Rather, Dawkins would probably challenge what “societal needs” are. I have no doubt that he challenges the “societal need” for “respect for sacred ideas.” Again, the choice isn’t between man-made consequences (must be religion) and nothing. Rather, it’s toward developing a better system of man-made consequences in lieu of the very unwieldy religious hodge podge we have.
4) Shame and guilt *aren’t* the same thing. That’s why I mention them separately. But how can religion have a role with both? Well, here’s the deal…is our internal compass hermetically sealed from the world? While I certainly believe that we have a sense of right and wrong distinct of whatever society or religion tells us (that’s why society does have to socialize us to fit in with the societal rules), I think that our sense of these things is heavily impacted by the communities we grow up in. So, if our communities teach us that certain things are bad (when perhaps, they aren’t bad at all), we could face quite a bit of guilt for something that need not be. Society shames us…yes…but if that was all that happened, then we’d simply have iconoclastic sociopaths. No, the socialization process is only “complete” when an individual INTERNALIZES a sense of guilt for breaking away from society. That is really what will deter him, and that is really what has opportunity to be abused.

Maybe I REALLY need to read the book, because I have NO IDEA where you are getting what you say last. I don’t think Dawkins assumes at all that the universe (God?) will right all wrongs in the end. This is more of a theistic conception than anything (oh, so there is terrible suffering, but don’t worry, because there are great and final imaginary future consequences to make up for this. There is a great and final judgment to give everyone what for. The first shall be last and the last shall be first, etc.,) so I really don’t know where to begin.

Instead, I think the case is that we need to admit that things aren’t catered to us. So that means that, even if we want all wrongs righted in the end, we aren’t owed anything of the sort. If we want to see “wrongs” righted, then we’ll have to “right” them ourselves. And even this can’t be seen in the same sense. Really, what will happen is something of a process of natural selection…where the “fit enough” (not necessarily the fittest) to adapt to the environment can survive. AT BEST, I can see that Dawkins is arguing for an “evolutionary” moral fit…(e.g., if we could somehow commit to doing x, y, and z, we’d find that we’d be more successful as a species. So, people who tend to do these things will survive and thrive and people who do not will languish. But this isn’t survival of the fittest. Just survival of the “fit enough,” so we shouldn’t believe that things will become super awesome just because.)

I have no doubt that Dawkins (as do we all) wraps and conflats his subjectively felt sense of morality with some objective morality, but this is…a spectator ion…Since it appears on both sides of the equation and effectively cancels out. The real issue is…when we make these claims, what are they based on? If Dawkins makes an evolutionary argument, we can point out that an is is not an ought. But when the Catholic makes a claim, or the Muslim, and what they have to bring to the table is the perennially reticent God, I can honestly see why Dawkins and others get frustrated.

brjones: I’m not the expert on Dawkins either, so I may be reaching. The way this argument flows (if I’m getting this right), Dawkins believes that religions (which were created by people) are inferior to one’s individual sense of morality (also necessarily man-made), and he equates the restrictions of religious moral codes with abuse. Certainly any group ethical code is going to be inferior to an individual on the points that the individual’s ethical code differ (at least in the opinion of the individual). But society still should have some sort of ethical code (or law). I’m saying that law and religion are essentially the same thing – a set of identified behaviors that promote the interests of society. I don’t think religion can create feelings of guilt in those not prone to feel guilt (e.g. sociopaths at the extreme). Society (and religion) can only apply shame (group rejection or disapproval), aside from corporal punishments obviously. Dawkins is not referring to corporal punishments here.

“It seems to me that he’s only arguing that personal restrictions based in religious lies (as he sees them) are abuse. You said yourself that “religion is only one method at keeping [children's] homocidal and anti-social impulses at bay.” I think Dawkins is just arguing that any other, more genuine, method would be less abusive. I don’t see how you extrapolate that to him arguing for anarchy in place of religion.” I’m not sure he’s pro-anarchy. I’m just saying that there is no difference between man-made religious behavior limitations and man-made laws to restrict behavior and promote society’s interests. Does earnestness make it not abusive? That can’t be right. There are plenty of earnest pedophiles in NAMBLA. I think he’s fooling himself if he thinks that religions are abusive because they are man-made (therefore lies) but that other man-made restrictions are not. It’s contradictory to ennoble man above God (via humanism) but then debase man for ennobling God (if God is man’s creation).

#33 Mike, I’m still not convinced Buddhist societies are any better at generating “intangible” progress (i.e., developing relationships with and concern for our fellowman) than Christian-influenced societies are. True, the Judeo-Christian concept of the one true religion has the potential to create hostility and conflict; on the other hand, I wonder if the (nominally) more universalist Buddhist ethic may simply leave the field clear for the human tribal and aggressive instincts to seek other channels. The popularity of Buddhism in mid-century Japan didn’t seem to help things much. The Buddhist majority in Sri Lanka just finished clobbering their pesky Hindu Tamil minority in a nasty civil war. Finally, on a strictly retail level, are we really sure that Buddhist-influenced societies make people better able to relate to each other, and build close relationships? I don’t see it. I see the modern world’s atomizing tendency going through Buddhist tradition (as with many other traditional cultural influences) like the proverbial whale through a net.

It may be that whatever marginal advantage Buddhism may have over Christianity in the empathy department, is outweighed by revealed religion’s potentially greater staying power, and inculcation in its adherents of cultural self-confidence. An enlightened, humane religion that everybody abandons in favor of iPhones, may not be superior in its practical effects to a marginally less “perfect” religion that at least keeps bottoms in pews.

#37 – “Again, the rhetoric of religion may be scarier (but is it really scarier to go to a future imagined hell than to be corporally punished in this life?), but the fact of the matter is that it’s just tough talk in the case of religion.”

I would agree with that, but I think it’s a little naive to ignore the very real damage that can be done by such (in some cases) extreme emotional manipulation as that which often takes place within a religious context. The real difference, in my mind, is children. In general, the intimidation and scary rhetoric used by secular society is deliberately not directed at children. In fact, there is a societal recognition and respect for the innocence and fragility of children that is severely lacking in religion. Where society generally thinks children should be shielded from behaviors and situations that are above their maturity levels, religion sees children as the perfect tabula rossa on which to project its doctrines and dogmas; a “get ‘em while they’re young” mentality, if you will. This is what is really disturbing to me. If children were not implicated, I would be much more likely to ignore religion altogether. When it comes to children, though, I think the attitude of religion is most insidious.

I disagree. This is a typical opening sentence from me, but not the point. Hawkgirl said “Dawkins believes that religions (which were created by people) are inferior to one’s individual sense of morality (also necessarily man-made)….” Wrong. Dawkins takes the position that humans as well as other animals (though developed much more in humans) have an innate sense of right and wrong that we’ve been bequeathed from our genes, our evolutionary history. Humans that get along with other humans make more successful humans. We’re herd animals. We have innate rules as to how to behave to those in our herds. For example, that “do unto others” thingie is pretty much universal in those societal organizations that are called religious. If your neighbors get along with you, you’ll do better.

However, Religion says, according to Dawkins: “You only need to be kind to your co-religionists. The others that disagree with your set of religious values are fair game for bad bad behavior. (For many examples please see pretty much any random page in the OT.) You can blow them up in suicide attacks, you can throw them (if relatives) out of your families, you can deny them marriage rites.

In other words, he sees religion as forcing humans into small groups that feel empowered to treat those that are not their co-religionists unfairly. Without religion, he sees more inclusive groups. I think he’s optimistic. Hope I’m wrong.

Thomas, I agree with you about the innate nature of tribes, and I would also agree that many religious traditions have espoused an enlarged sense of human inclusiveness, even while simultaneously fostering a heightened sense of exclusivity. I think it’s very short-sighted, though, to say that to the extent humans have progressed past the tribal mentality, religion gets the credit. Where was religion in the first 75 years of the United States’ existence? Leading the charge for continued slavery, while many godless abolitionists in the north fought for equality. It was the uber-religious south that fought tooth and nail against desegregation and racial equality in the mid-20th century, while progressive secularists fought on the right side of inclusion. Where is religion now, when other minorities are fighting for equality? It’s Salt Lakr City vs. San Francisco, and religion is once again fighting FOR the exclusive, tribal mentality.

I’m not saying that religion is always on the wrong side of this fight. Just when the books and prophets say they should be. This is the problem. What is a believer to do when inclusion is not justified by their texts or dogmas? Why, they fight against it, per deistic fiat. My point is that human beings, free from religion, are perfectly and admirably capable of deciding to be inclusive.

To the extent that religion was necessary in the past to break down geographic and ethnic barriers, I would argue it is no longer needed in that realm, and is in fact now working backwards on that front.

I agree that it is the providence of religion to be exclusive. The LDS Church has always tried to be perhaps the most exclusive of all, starting with JS proclamation that all other religions were wrong. Echoes of this came forward to people like BRM who stated basically that if you weren’t the Mormon church, you belonged to the Church of the Devil. Even the whole premise of the missionary program is exclusivist – it doesn’t matter what religion you are (Buddhist, Methodist, Hindu, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, JW, etc.), you will be better off if, at the end of the day, you leave that and become a Mormon. And no one will ultimately reach the ultimate reward unless they are Mormon, in this life or in the next. It doesn’t get much more exclusive than that.

#45 — Thanks for the good humor. Some people don’t take my smartbleepery nearly so well.

“I think secularists tend to be more “progressive” and hence tend more toward inclusiveness, which involves change and is thus an inherently liberal movement.”

That may be the case today. It wasn’t necessarily so for the thinkers of classical antiquity, or for the original Progressives, who were often avid supporters of eugenics (“three generations of imbeciles are enough”) and social Darwinism. Neither would I say that modern “progressives” are perfect examples of inclusiveness; many of them do still entertain a kind of folk-Marxist concept of politics as class struggle, which by definition excludes the Enemies of the People.

I believe the best of all worlds is inclusive (rather than sectarian) religion — something out of Karl Ratner.

Rico, I didn’t want to distract anymore from this thread. I case you’re interested I have continued my conversation with Andrew over at his blog:

http://irresistibledisgrace.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/richard-dawkins-says-the-darnedest-things/#more-1510

#49 – Again, I can’t speak for Dawkins, but I would respond that it’s not necessarily that a secular approach would allow us to get along with other tribes so much better than religion does. I think the overarching point is that religion uses control and manipulation to TELL PEOPLE who they should and should not be getting along with. I think this is inherently problematic. I don’t think Dawkins’s main complaint in the “religion as child abuse” debate is necessarily based primarily in the results. I think it’s based at least as much in the idea that the methodology is offensive. Religious supporters often put forth the idea that the ends essentially justify the means, especially with respect to children. I think Dawkins would reject this argument out of hand, and rightly so, in my opinion. I think the encouragement of an openness of ideas and personal choice through reason and logic is always preferrable to thought control and manipulation.

“The other key fallacy that I’m not sure I made very clearly is that he elevates human capability to distinguish right from wrong above that of religion, yet states that all religion is man-made. So, which is it? Are humans good at distinguishing right or not? If humans are so good at it, why do they continue to create religions as their method of protecting society’s interests? He acts as though religion exists apart from humans.”

I’m not sure I see the inconsistency here. Religion is man-made BECAUSE human capability to distinguish right from wrong exists above that of religion. I think there are a couple of reasons that humans continue to create religions as their method of protecting society’s interests. One reason is that the powerful in society (either the holders of actual power or those who are powerful in speech, persuasion, etc.) manipulate those who are less powerful, and the most effective way to establish and maintain power is through religious authority. The reason people allow themselves to be subject to such powermongering is because of fear. As good as human beings may be at naturally distinguishing between right and wrong, this ability does not satisfy the function of answering unanswerable questions that are frightening for most people. People want to know where they go when they die and distinguishing right from wrong doesn’t get you there. I don’t think there’s any mystery in why humans continue to establish religions, and I don’t think it has anything to do with needing to be told what is right and wrong. Being able to sleep at night is a more pressing concern. I think a sampling from various religious traditions demonstrates this quite sufficiently. Even if you just look at contemporary religions and ignore different eras, the idea of what constitutes right and wrong is all over the map from religion to religion, but the one constant in every religion that ever was is this: if you do what we say, YOU AND ONLY YOU will be in paradise/heaven/your father’s mansion/etc. after you die. Right and wrong is a trifle. The big picture is always obedience to gain salvation. This is the point of religion. Insurance.

#47: Oh, I absolutely believe that Americans are more prone to political/cultural hatreds than they are to expressly religious hatreds. We’ve had it drummed into our heads since at least the 1940s that religious intolerance is a Bad Thing, like racism. Plenty of people, having made sure they have the correct thinking about those two species of human noxiousness, consider themselves free to be complete jerks in other interpersonal relationships.

And I absolutely believe that there are culturally-based hatreds for people like Sarah Palin or Barack Obama that are out of all proportion to people’s mere disagreements with their substantive policy positions.

#51 – “Beware of attributing Mormon-style sectarian exclusivity to the entire religious world.”

Fair enough. Although I have known a decent number of Catholics (as well as other religions) and I haven’t gotten a strong universalist vibe from any of them. In my experience, regardless of the doctrine, adherants to a particular religion believe that their religion is “right” and others are not so right. Just my impression.

“I would say that the most effective way to establish and maintain power is to shoot people who object to its exercise. Just ask Chairman Mao, Nick Macchiavelli, and probably the vast majority of succesful princes in history.”

I would disagree with this statement. Obviously in the short term using violence and terror is a quick way to establish power. However, history shows that it is not an effective long-term strategy. On the other hand, Catholic leaders, for example, have been wielding an inordinate amount of power for going on 2 millenia, with no end in sight. when it comes to effectiveness, it’s a no-brainer. This is particularly true when your goal is not simply behavior control, but thought/belief control. Religious leaders don’t just get people to DO what they want – they get people to BELIEVE as they want. Furthermore, if done properly, this behavior and belief control becomes a self-perpetuating phenomena, with parents teaching/indoctrinating their own children on behalf of the religious leader(s). There may be a few secular leaders who have pulled off such a trick, but I’m not aware of any with the longevity of established religious traditions.

I agree that religion is dangerous to leaders in secular positions who try to use it to wield power, but to religious leaders, I don’t think the same can be said. How many Pope’s were ever overthrown? How often is the Mormon prophet called to task by the members of the church for failing to be subject to god? Once you convince the people that you are god’s mouthpiece, the heavy lifting is done.

“Good religion — including Mormonism at its best — teaches that God himself is bound by (or inseparable from) natural moral law. Right and wrong is not a “trifle” — it’s everything.”

I have no problem with these statements, but they’re really only theory. In practice, not remotely everyone believes and/or lives this, regardless of how much lip service is paid to the idea. This is equally true of religious leaders, in my opinion. Besides, what’s the value in claiming that god is bound by natural moral law, when you can do whatever you want and then just say “that’s in harmony with natural law.” How do you know? “God told me so.” End of story. If god told OT prophets to murder and enslave children, or if he commanded JS to marry a 14 year old or have sex with other men’s wives behind their backs, then god and his natural law are immoral and frankly I don’t care how real they are. It’s a constantly moving target. Either the statement above is a farce, designed to keep the people from getting too rowdy, or it’s a meaningless platitude that only really means god (and his servants) can do literally anything, as long as it’s part of god’s greater plan.

Let me pose a question (with the understanding that this is a bit of a tangent): If god really IS bound by some higher natural law, then, considering just the things that god has commanded in recorded human history, which must then be consistent with natural law since god did them, then what exactly is it that this supreme natural law is constraining god from doing? The only things that come quickly to mind are a) create or destroy matter and b) allow someone to gain salvation who hasn’t taken the proper steps to receive it. Thanks for that. All the things that I would want a law to prevent someone from doing seem to actually be in harmony with this natural law, so for me, the LDS concept of checks and balances of natural law on god is not really that interesting or appealing.

Sorry for the tangent.

“I hold most parents blameless bc they don’t know any better.”

If you really believe god does not exist, I would take issue with this statement.

Dexter – you are totally missing my point. I’m not defending religion very strongly (nowhere near as strongly as Dawkins opposes it), and certainly not in a vacuum. I’m simply pointing out that religion was created by humans. Dawkins attacks religion but says human instincts are good – yet ignores the fact that religions are the byproduct of human instincts. Dawkins is elevating human instincts into some nebulous cloud above the institutions (religions) they continue to create. If religions are good, it is because of the humans who created them. If they are bad, likewise. To say (or imply) that religions exist outside of humanity is silly, nor is Dawkins even saying that – he’s just ignoring the catch-22 of his own argument.

I’m just pointing out that he elevates the human systems he personally likes while decrying the ones he doesn’t. Political regimes can be more controlling and evil than religions. People (not religions) are both the problem and the hope for a better solution.

“I would disagree with this statement. Obviously in the short term using violence and terror is a quick way to establish power. However, history shows that it is not an effective long-term strategy.”

Oh, I dunno. I think America probably holds the title for “longest-lasting representative democracy” at only 233 years — longer than any of the classical republics lasted. Rome lasted as an empire for 450 years (1450, if you count the eastern empire). Imperial China lasted for millennia; its successors dodged the democracy bullet by shooting lots of their own into Tiananmen Square. As long as autocrats don’t buy into stupid, unsustainable economic theories, history provides plenty of indications that Orwell’s “boot stamping on a human face” is a more proven long-term strategy than democracy — if mere power is the only objective.

“How many Pope’s were ever overthrown?”

Quite a few, memorably including Boniface VIII and Gregory VII. More often, they remained in office but were at the mercy of the European great powers, who for awhile sponsored competing Popes in Avignon and Rome. For most of the Middle Ages, the Papacy’s powers were definitely inferior to that of the guys with lots of knights.

“Fair enough. Although I have known a decent number of Catholics (as well as other religions) and I haven’t gotten a strong universalist vibe from any of them. In my experience, regardless of the doctrine, adherants to a particular religion believe that their religion is “right” and others are not so right.”

As do secularists. The difference is that a conscientious believer recognizes that there is something subjective about his belief, and so makes allowance for others’ beliefs, while the secular ideologue may suffer from the illusion that his beliefs are convincingly demonstrated by nothing but pure reason — and therefore his opponents must be arguing in bad faith. I get this a lot from many of that tribe. (No, I’m not being paid by Exxon for pointing out the fallacies in “An Inconvenient Truth.”)

As for “the things that god has commanded in recorded human history,” you need an “allegedly” between “has” and “commanded.” (Or is that splitting an infinitive, and is that still considered bad grammar?) I agree that much of the Old Testament is morally and intellectually indefensible, and if God really is anything like the psychopath a bunch of bloodthirsty desert nomads dreamed up, then we really should be researching how to flip some ICBMs his way. But again, the fact that people were slow on the uptake in understanding the true God, doesn’t discredit faith per se, any more than early Progressives’ fad for eugenics and race pseudoscience necessarily discredits their liberal ideological descendants.

“If god told OT prophets to murder and enslave children, or if he commanded JS to marry a 14 year old or have sex with other men’s wives behind their backs, then god and his natural law are immoral and frankly I don’t care how real they are.”

Alternatively, God had nothing to do with any of this.

#61 — “I just feel that religion is a particularly attractive weapon with which to manipulate and mislead people.”

No argument here.

brjones said: “I will readily concede that the criticisms I have levelled at religion are largely directed at those who abuse the trust and naivete of religious followers, and should not be used to paint all believers. I just feel that religion is a particularly attractive weapon with which to manipulate and mislead people.” I fully agree with this.

Dexter: “children are taught that their parents’ religion is GOD-MADE! The difference between being taught that GOD said such and such, as opposed to saying MEN or SOCIETY deemed such and such, cannot be overstated, especially when the pupils are children.” But the teaching itself is what is or isn’t abuse, not the attribution of the teaching to God or society. If a religion teaches that eating your vegetables is godly, no harm no foul. If a religion teaches that eating nuclear waste is godly, that’s abusive. Most religious teachings are net positive or neutral. And most of the negative religious teachings are motivating by tribalism or politics and are the same outcomes you see from nations, political parties, and other non-religious affiliations.

“Laws are created by men, by society, and are subject to change.” As are religious tenets – however, I should add that both are generally at the mercy of an elite group of leaders.

“God’s laws, although changed by the brethren every now and again, are treated as unchangeable to the common member.” Dawkins wasn’t talking about the LDS church, and neither was I, so your reference to the brethren is more narrow than the discussion. I will only state that regardless of the “unchangeability” in the rhetoric, religions change all the time – history proves this. New religions form out of old ones. Old ones are reinterpreted under new leaders or the members simply fly below the radar while disagreeing with the leaders.

“In fact, it’s a sin to think changes should be made in many religions.” There are many exceptions to this: new sects form within old religions, new interpretations (aka revelations) occur. Again, history shows that regardless the rhetoric, change in religion is constant. Religions may say that they don’t change, but the fact is that they do.

“In a very totalitarian state perhaps your argument would make a little more sense but even then children are not taught that the tsar can read their mind and is taking notes on every bad thought or action they take.” Again, history would disagree – the divine right of kings was the rule of thumb for most of recorded history. Democracy is a very recent development. Pharoahs, Caesars, Ayatollahs, etc. were all unquestioned Gods to their people.

“And totalitarian states are not really at issue since Dawkins was speaking to the free world and most of us live in the USA or other non-totalitarian regimes.” Yes, that may be so, but that was one of my points – that he is fooled into thinking that democracy and free-thinking is the norm or the logical conclusion of humanism. But history does not show us that. History shows us that these so-called enlightened humans continually create and reinforce the systems he considers less enlightened. Why is that? Humans must be less enlightened than he thinks. He only praises their efforts when they are in agreement with him.

So what if history is dominated by totalitarians? What is relevant is where we are now. We can’t change the past. We can change the here and now, and we should.

You repeatedly state “history shows…” So what? We are talking about the perceptions of a child. A child is not aware that religions change their tune constantly. Of course religions are led by men who make changes for their benefit, but the child is taught that it is led by an unchanging god, and that it is not their place to criticize or question the religion. This is simply not so with the laws of the nation we live in. For you to say they are the same (teaching man-made laws or teaching god’s laws to a child) is simply way, way off, in my opinion.

And you continually apologize for religious teachings as if every once in a blue moon it teaches something harmful, and everything else is innocuous. I could not disagree more. One of the biggest problems is that it teaches people NOT to think.

I am growing tired of this discussion. If you think religions don’t teach anything harmful then I simply disagree.

#65 – Hawk, I think all of your points are valid. The disagreement I have with the whole of your argument, though, is what started this discussion in the first place: the way each respective school of thought deals with children. Even if you argue that religion and secular social structures are essentially equally good/bad, I think it’s a fair point to consider the way each deals with children. Religion sees it as a virtue to begin indoctrinating children from the moment they are able to retain information, and it justifies this indoctrination by the idea that the information is true, so it’s ok to manipulate thoughts and emotions. Even if secularism is equally bad, or even if I concede that it’s objectively worse, I think you have to admit that AS A RULE, secularists would not support the idea of implanting any such ideas in a child’s head, or coercing or manipulating their behavior with an “ends justify the means” rationale. Obviously that’s not to say that no secularists do this – there are extremists everywhere. However, I don’t believe that secularists would see such behavior as a positive or laudable strategy. Regardless of which value system is more correct or noble, I would argue, and I think this is much of Dawkins’s point, that this way of dealing with children is objectionable and in many cases harmful.

“religions are created by humans, so if you indict religions, you have indicted those humans as well.”

I have no problem with this statement as I think it is largely accurate. I don’t think Dawkins would argue that all human beings are above religion. Even if human beings possess the potential to rationally or inherently determine right from wrong independent of religion, most choose not to. Thus, I think it’s wholly consistent if you detest religion, to indict those humans who create, perpetuate and follow religions. Again, I don’t think there is any inconsistency in Dawkins’s position in this respect. Humans have the potential and ability to determine right from wrong, but to the extent they cede the responsibility of doing so to religion (a lower order of morality, he might add), they deserve to be indicted.

#69 – This is not a point of argument, but just something that struck me as interesting as I read this comment. Both of the examples that you cited – reciting the pledge of allegiance and sending people off to war, are, at least today in this country, firmly conservative right issues. As a rule, I think secularists today are opposed to both of these things. Obviously the pledge is very politicized because of the mention of god, but many liberal secularists are opposed to pledging allegiance to the U.S. generally. Similarly, the current wars seem to be inextricably tied up in religion, or at least religious symbolism. Perhaps this is because they are Bush’s legacy, and he was so unabashadly guided by overtly religious principles. It was just interesting that my initial reaction to both of your examples was “secularists in this country today would probably not support either of those things.” Not sure it’s significant, just interesting.

Dexter – no hard feelings here! I enjoy talking with you. I think Dawkins is brilliant, too. I also find him arrogant, and I don’t always agree with him. Like anyone who comes from an extreme, I think he’s prone to hyperbole. Yet I find his hyperbole more appealing (believe it or not) than those who bash atheists.

Dathon at NOM posted an interesting link to a book by Bruce Sheiman called “An Atheist Defends Religion.” Here’s an exerpt: “I approach religion much like an economist. I believe religion persists in our market-based culture, despite the prevalence of secularism, because it provides net value over and above its required investment, and because it beats competing belief systems in the same value proposition. I evaluate religion in terms of its pragmatic usefulness to humankind . . . I am making a broad statement about the affirmative role of religion in the contemporary world and what is lost in a purely secular conception of the world. ”

Having said all of that, I do think religion is often the opiate of the masses. But it sure does keep those masses quieted down. There’s a reason most geniuses through time have leaned agnostic, heretic, or atheist, and I think it’s because they see past the controlling rhetoric of religion and lived according to their own values. Many of them simply found a way to function in a religious society without making a stink over it. A few unlucky ones rocked the wrong boat at the wrong time and paid the ultimate price. But humanity is mostly made up of non-geniuses.

I admire your way of never offending others and never being offended. I could work on both.

I have read nearly all of Dawkins’ books. They are, in general, extremely well written. One may not agree with him, and there may be lines here and there to nit-pick about when taken out of context, but overall, his arguments are compelling and well-supported. In contrast, I find many arguments made by those who “argue” with him directly or indirectly fairly wishy-washy. As an example, you could take Dawkins name off any of his books and it would stand alone on its own merits, regardless of his position in academia, etc. Many other books, like Joseph Fielding Smith or BRM books would fail were it not for an appeal to their positions.

Probably my biggest question actually relates to an argument Dawkins has made. We try to be inclusive with post-mortal conversion and temple work, etc., but the LDS Church is probably as exclusive as any other in the world. Not only do you have to believe in Christ to attain the highest level of reward, but you have to believe in OUR version of Christ, with OUR baptism, and OUR ordinances. For the 99.9% of the current population who aren’t active Mormons, this necessarily bars them from the ultimate reward (against, except for post-mortal conversion, in which case it doesn’t really matter what religion you are here anyway, perhaps defeating the purpose or mortality??). Other Christian demonimations are equally as exclusive, as are Jews and Muslims. Even Buddhists are exclusive to an extent. You won’t necessarily be consigned to an eternal hell if you miss nirvana this time around, but you’ll have to repeat the test.

If there were truly ONE way back to the highest level with God, doesn’t it seem that this should naturally grow and be predominant? Doesn’t seem that people should inherently “flock” to this out of an inborn feeling that “this is it”? Shouldn’t it resonate with nearly everyone that comes in contact with it? But as Dawkins (and others) have pointed out, the number one determination of someone’s religion doesn’t seem to be anything like this, but something as mundane as what religion a child’s parents profess.

Any answers here?

Dawkins isn’t above “believing” afterall it’s his “belief” that “God” doesn’t exist.

Rico, could you send me a quick email please?

Andrew, ultimately all knowledge, or belief, has a subjective component. I believe the objective should be try to align our subjective opinions to objective truth as closely as we can.

Clearly this is possible. An engineer designing an airplane can make calculations that are objectively correct, such that the plane gets off the ground.

I believe certain moral conclusions flow logically from positing a God who desires human happiness. As you note, there will always be a subjective component to those conclusions, “as long as man’s reason continues fallible,” as I think Madison put it. That leaves us with two choices: We can declare the whole enterprise pointless (because of the inevitability of some quantity of error), or we can act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” We do need to balance our resolve to act on our convictions, with the recognition of the limitations of subjective faith, and the moral right of others to hold other views. In the Mormon context, I believe that should incline us to adhere more to Joseph’s remark that he didn’t blame anyone for not believing his history, than to the currently emphasized warnings about “the bitter fruits of apostasy,” snide comments about people “crawling” over the Book of Mormon, and self-righteous comparison of Mormon doctrine with that of other churches (the details of which we frequently distort in the process).

“This produces meaningful differences to the expectations for children, and the stress that children who don’t believe will go through. A child who grows up in such a system and does not believe blames himself first and beats himself up…after all, what he has learned is, “This is the way things are.” So, the child’s inability to believe is his inability to understand the world as it actually is. It would be QUITE NICE if most believers did as you say, and recognized that there is subjective about their belief. After all, in particular, Mormonism has a lot of subjective argumentation. It would be nice if members recognized that their burning in the bosom is sign of…a burning in the bosom. It isn’t necessarily evidence that the Book of Mormon is historical, or that its teachings are objectively true, etc., etc., (And even if the Book of Mormon happens to coincide with facts about history, the burning in the bosom does not address that in the slightest.) But that doesn’t happen very often.”

I agree with all of this. I was raised in a Mormon home that was probably more emphasized by the David O. McKay/Stephen L. Richards/OC Tanner school of irenic Mormonism, and not the Bruce R. McConkie ultramontanist variety. And yet I still experienced plenty of stress, and self-doubt, and beating myself up over the possibility that I was to blame for the fact that I simply couldn’t reconcile myself to some major aspects of the Church being literally true. I wonder, though, whether this might simply be an unavoidable price to be paid for faith (which I am convinced does carry some precious advantages). Religious literature is full of references to “wrestling” and dark nights of the soul and so forth. I am not sure I would be better off for having avoided the stresses faith has brought me — if I had settled down to a bland “I’m OK, you’re OK” conventional American therapeutic mindset. (Man does not live by Oprah platitudes alone.)

I think Mormonism does have a long way to go towards honestly facing up to its uncertainties, and towards making proper allowance for other opinions. But that doesn’t necessarily mean chucking faith altogether.

re 84:

I agree with all of this. I was raised in a Mormon home that was probably more emphasized by the David O. McKay/Stephen L. Richards/OC Tanner school of irenic Mormonism, and not the Bruce R. McConkie ultramontanist variety. And yet I still experienced plenty of stress, and self-doubt, and beating myself up over the possibility that I was to blame for the fact that I simply couldn’t reconcile myself to some major aspects of the Church being literally true. I wonder, though, whether this might simply be an unavoidable price to be paid for faith (which I am convinced does carry some precious advantages).

I think Dawkins entire point is that this *is* somehow an unavoidable price to be paid for some aspect of faith. It *is* an unavoidable price to be paid if we teach children that our beliefs are The Way Things Are instead of The Way Things We Perceive.

Now, I guess where every individual differs is on the level of precious advantages that faith has, the level of precious advantages that *any particular* faith has, and whether these precious advantages overrule the unavoidable price to be paid for.

If I say “This doesn’t necessarily mean chucking faith altogether,” it is with the preface that faith *must* be radicalized into something that admits that it is steeped in subjectivity. But I can’t expect the church — or most other churches — to do this, and understandably so. The church isn’t positing a subjective God, a subjective Priesthood, a subjective burning in the bosom, a Book of Mormon that has subjective value. Rather, the church is proposing a God who externally and objectively exists for everyone, a priesthood that externally and objectively affects everything, a burning in the bosom that is connected with external truths, and a Book of Mormon that corresponds to objective facts about the universe and the world.

re 85:

hawkgrrrl, again, no. Conscientious does not mean aware. So someone who is unaware of the subjectivity of his/her belief can still be conscientious. Your argument seems to be an adjustment on the “opponents must be arguing in bad faith,” where you exchange “bad faith” with “unawareness.”

I think this is still improper. I don’t think it gets us anywhere to write off those who believe their beliefs are objectively grounded as “unaware” anymore than these people may think that people who disagree with them are arguing in “bad faith.”

Andrew S – I thought I was being conciliatory. Let me try again.

“Conscientious does not mean aware.” How can one be conscientious without being aware? Conscientious means meticulous, painstaking, careful, thoughtful. How can one be accidentally thoughtful or meticulous? Conscientiousness implies deliberateness, which means one has to be aware. Is Dawkins using this word in some way that differs substantially from the dictionary definition?
“So someone who is unaware of the subjectivity of his/her belief can still be conscientious.” I don’t see how one can be unaware that one’s belief in God contains subjective components (e.g. personal experience, feelings, desire) and still be conscientious.
“Your argument seems to be an adjustment on the “opponents must be arguing in bad faith,” where you exchange “bad faith” with “unawareness.”” Yes, I suppose I would consider bad faith and unawareness somewhat equivalent – both show a lack of conscientiousness or thoughtfulness.
“I think this is still improper. I don’t think it gets us anywhere to write off those who believe their beliefs are objectively grounded as “unaware” anymore than these people may think that people who disagree with them are arguing in “bad faith.”” I’m not saying there are no objective components to one’s faith or secularism, just that neither is provable; therefore, any reasonable and conscientious person on either side of the divide should be willing to admit subjectivity is involved in their conclusion.

Thomas, you make it sound as if Bishop Bob and Scientist Sam will teach their children opposing things but using the same methods. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dawkins is saying it is wrong, even abusive, to teach children about religion as if it is a matter of fact and to teach that a failure to accept or belief those teachings means the child’s heart is lacking faith, etc., etc. Meanwhile, Dawkins is saying that Scientist Sam (and every other parent in the world)SHOULD teach the child to think for himself and to come to his own conclusions based on the evidence the world contains. Religious teaching invokes believing what cannot be seen, and praises one who will believe without evidence. Dawkins endorses teaching a child to come to their own conclusions. There will be no curtain to look behind under Dawkins’ method because the child’s beliefs will not be based on some mysterious lurker who may or may not exist.

And by the way, EVEN IF THE CHURCH IS TRUE, I think Dawkins method of parenting is far superior to Bishop Bob’s. Let the child determine what to believe on his own. If the church is so true, he will find it. He doesn’t need to be brainwashed about it from day 1.

Amen.

Further re: #89:

““OK, OK, so you have to come to know the Gospel is true through subjective means…but it is true regardless of if you come to know it through those means. If you don’t use those means, that means you have simply failed to have the subjective experience. You have failed to see; failed to hear; etc.,”

The related idea (with faith) is that if you have failed to see, failed to hear, then you *should* endure to the end, believe on the words of others (at the least), desire to believe (at the least), and if you don’t do this, if you don’t endure to the end, if you don’t have faith, then that is your personal failure, your personal pride, etc,.

This is an argument that, even if all religious people don’t make it, I can see why Dawkins would say it is a uniquely religious argument.”

Again, as we’ve discussed, the Catholics have formally renounced the thinking you condemn. They are open to the possibility that a person’s declining to become Catholic might have other reasons than personal failure, pride, or the like, and to the possibility of those people achieving salvation by living with what grace they have received, and go so far even as to contemplate salvation for atheists.

There are aspects of this thinking in Mormonism. I remember an interview between Neal Maxwell and Hugh Hewitt where Elder Maxwell put it this way. It may be in a bit of eclipse these days, but things change.

Even if every child eventually looks behind the curtain to some extent, which child will be more upset upon looking behind the curtain? The one who was TAUGHT God will help him find his lost baseball and that one day he will create worlds or the child who mistakenly believed, without being taught, that he was more important in the grand scheme of things than he really is based on his own perception of self importance?

Dawkins is absolutely 100% right.

“‘Let the child determine what to believe on his own.’ Nobody, but nobody, genuinely believes or practices that. Some come closer than others. Scientist Sam comes much closer than Bishop Bob. And Dawkins’ encouraging all to be more like Scientist Sam is a very moral and compassionate position.

So here’s my personal feelings on this, not quoting anyone else or anything, followed by a sincere question:

I was raised LDS. I did seminary and was on seminary council. I went on a mission, serving as ZL, AP, etc. I married in the temple. I’ve always had a temple recommend. I’ve served in a number of callings. Etc. I have done all of these things because of what my parents instilled in me. I have read the BofM 10-15 times in my life. I have prayed about it hundreds of times. And, to this day, I can’t say that I’ve ever say that I’ve received an answer as to the simple question as to whether the BofM is true, along with all that implies. I feel it has truth in it, and have had good feelings when reading it, but I have had the same feelings reading the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, etc. The conflict between what I was raised with and what I have experienced (or not) had personally caused tremendous anguish in my life. I’m sure it isn’t to the level of sexual abuse that Dawkins referred to, but I don’t know as I’ve never experienced that.

So, what do I do?

a) Stick to the “faith of my fathers”. Remain active LDS as I’ve been my whole life and hope that at some point before I die that God will finally reveal to me that what I have devoted so much time to is exclusively true (meaning the only way to ultimately get back to the highest reward is through LDS ordinances, and through those only – done either while you’re alive or dead)

b) Stick to what I have increasingly felt – that God has inspired many great men through the ages, that there is much truth in many, many sources, and that the LDS church is just another one of these sources. In this viewpoint, I would assume that a great many of the 99.9% of people on this earth are good people and will ultimately get a full reward anyway, regardless of whether they were ever LDS.

Have I been carrying around all these feelings of unease unnecessarily, as Dawkins might claim?

Any comments…?

97

I think if all parents had your attitude the world would be a much better place.

#93: “However, to use a personal example, I try very hard when teaching my children or answering their questions about morality, etc., to make sure they understand that a) what I’m telling them is usually just my opinion; b) there are many other good people who feel completely differently than I, and it doesn’t make them bad people or even wrong (and I try to give concrete examples of family members, etc., with differing viewpoints); and c) that every person eventually has to decide for him or herself what they believe. Often when making the last point, I will explain to my children that mommies and daddies have the responsibility for raising and teaching and making decisions for their children when they are small, so for right now we’re doing the things that mommy and daddy believe are best, but at some point they’ll have to decide for themselves, and whatever they decide is find with us.”

That approach has much to commend it. In the heat of battle, I am myself more liable to tell Older Son not to smack Younger Son because it’s a law of the freakin’ universe, and then fill in the “reasonable people can disagree and you will need to make your own choices” fine print (“In case of a moral conviction lasting longer than four hours, consult a physician”) at the proper time.

I think we’ve really gotten to something here. The “abuse” is when parents abdicate their responsibility to raise self-reliant adults capable of their own reasoning and instead resort to controlling children through fear and irrational threats (or promises). I still hesitate to call it abuse, but I do agree it’s bad parenting to fork over all your decision-making power to someone else, be it God or “follow the prophet” or the Bible or whatever. “Because the prophet said” or “it’s God’s law” or “if you don’t, you won’t go to Heaven” just don’t seem like good parenting to me. Good parents need to instill decision-making and thinking skills in their children. By the same token, as with other empty threats and promises (e.g. “wait ’til your father gets home”), I believe kids eventually figure out that it’s a limited thought process and come up with their own.

Well, Andrew, God either is or he isn’t. You wager no, and seem to find it offensive that believers say “yes” — even in the most generous possible terms, bending over absolutely backward to avoid ascribing blame to decent non-believers for their unbelief. They cannot go any further without abandoning their faith altogether and agreeing with you. And if it is “harming” to take the position that the answer to whether God exists is objectively Yes, then why is it not equally “harming” to take the position that the answer is objectively “No,” and it is the believers who are “pitiably deluded from what is objectively true”?

#108 – I think this is a fair criticism of Dawkins, Andrew. While he goes out of his way in The God Delusion to point out that he’s not 100% positive that god does not exist, there’s definitely a sense that his motivation is to show how reasonable he is as compared to religious believers. That said, I do maintain that as a rule, even the most fervent secularists or atheists stop short of the level of confidence in the correctness of their position that the vast majority of religious believers regularly demonstrate (Dexter’s declarative statements notwithstanding).

Telling a kid to be quiet is 100 times easier than teaching one calculus. Reminds me of a funny story, a BYU Econ Professor tried to teach his son calculus (the son told me the story). The conversations always ended with the professor saying “How do you not understand this, I just explained it,” followed by the son thinking, “I’m never asking my dad for help again.”

This conversation seems to miss Dawkins’ entire point, which is that belief in God very often preculdes an understanding of the modern world around them. For example, with reference to Biology, is evolution both a fact and a theory, or should it be suppressed at every turn? This is Dawkins’ real beef, as far as I can tell. He’s a biolgist, and after a certain huge number of run-ins with new-earth creationists he’s had enough. Similarly, is the scientific method wrong? Dawkins feels strongly that children should be taught how to understand the world using, say, repeatable results, rather than listening to some guy who wants 105 of their income (this may be an approximation) and will encourage their parents to toss them out of the house should the child prefer the repeatable experimental method. The choice is the Dark Ages or the Modern world.

Religion teaches, nay, requires, that children never learn critical thinking.

Oh, and Thomas way back at comment #43 about who was responsible for the anti-slavery movement in the US? You suggested Unitarians. I won’t disagree, but Unitarians don’t believe in an interventionist God, and didn’t back then either, so they count on Dawkins’ side. The history here is revalent; basically there are a bucketload of pro-slavery verses in the Bible that any old Christian can quote. It took someone who saw them as other than literal to make the paradigm shift that our black brothers were, fer reals, our black brothers.

So, for Dawkins, raising your child religious = enforcing that the child not LEARN, rather that she simply regurgitate (and pay) to the “higher power.”

Since I’m in a bad mood, I’ll give an example:

“The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.” Dallin Oaks at BYU Idaho in a formal talk about why he gets to hate his favorite hated minority. Religion. Dawkins’ point.

Same argument with slightly fewer typos. Deep breaths, djinn.

For those that don’t get it, the Old Testament is rife with hook-ups we would consider somewhat outre, perhaps even worse than multiple ear piercings. For example there’s that whole concubinage thingie. As an example, think of Abraham having his son Ishmael by his handmaid Hagar. They weren’t married. Hagar wad a bondmaiden, or as we say in harsh 21st century English, a slave–and don’t forget she and Ishmael were unceremoniously tossed out at Sarah’s reques. She didn’t have much choice in the matter. Somehow Oaks doesn’t invoke sleeping with the choiceless help as a “an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect”, but yet, there it is. More examples? Jacob had four souns from his wives slaves; David and Johathan were VERY GOOD FRIENDS, and the list goes on. I’m not even getting into Leviatical marriage here.

Now, If I may invoke Dawkins. I’d use a critical skill or two and perhaps wonder about the sppropriateness of sleeping with my wife’s servant. From Oak’s poit of view, though, what would he say? What does he say? If I mah paraphrase: “Marriage, which i call that ‘institution of transcendent importance’, should not be examined at all. At all, at all. Just believe what i say and keep those bibles firmly shut. (Which reminds me–do you supponse tha wide ignorance concerning such issuses amongst the rank and file is simply because they can’t understand the archaic english? Whatever.

I think you have it right Rico, it’s not the beliveing (as such, unless it eggs you on to misdeads against the disfavored group) but the threat of excommunication frmon fmaily, form friends, form your whole world that creates the damage.

#113 Dexter,
Regarding Dawkins’ tone, sometimes he does come off a little too strong. But I find this more frustrating with Hitchens. I love Hitchens’ work but I feel he would have more credibility if he were less condescending with his tone.

Dawkins is a more than a little bit full of himself, and he doesn’t understand religious people at all, but I think he comes across as pretty reasonable most of the time. Hitchens, OTOH, just comes across as a jerk.