If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life1 min ago
On Being Raised With Religion.
93 Answers
I've just read this article and although it's not a new idea it seems to have pressed the Mails "Outrage" button.
I was raised as a catholic and can remember, even at primary school, doubting what I was told.
Anyone have views on this?
http://
I was raised as a catholic and can remember, even at primary school, doubting what I was told.
Anyone have views on this?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chrisgel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The way Dawkins portrays it seems to be fairly reasonable. A child should be brought up so that when the time comes he is able to choose between alternatives. Indoctrinating a child removes that choice. As he makes clear he is not arguign for religious teaching to be suppressed - merely to carry "Advisory warning: some dispute this".
Jim - Yes that seems to be happening quite frequently these days.
There was a "theme" going on on Youtube recently that "All babies are atheists" which sort of ties in with this. This article got me thinking about my "indoctrination". The more I think about what we were told as children by adults who we have to trust at that age (5 - 11) the more I have to agree with him that it was abuse. Albeit psychological.
There was a "theme" going on on Youtube recently that "All babies are atheists" which sort of ties in with this. This article got me thinking about my "indoctrination". The more I think about what we were told as children by adults who we have to trust at that age (5 - 11) the more I have to agree with him that it was abuse. Albeit psychological.
I agree with him. Telling children that something highly spurious is true when they are too intellectually vulnerable and under-developed to make up their own minds is exploitation. It is also the only reason that religion has survived to anything like the level that it has in the modern world.
There's long been something of a smear-campaign against Dawkins posing him as "strident", "shrill" etc., whereas if you read any of his books or watch any of the debates he partakes in online (there are many available) it's plainly obvious that neither is true, and such accusations merely evade the responsibility of engaging with his arguments.
Typically, however, the Mail doesn't engage critically with its subject material and prefers to paint clichés and caricatures of real people in a self-vindicating way. Well, more fool them. According to its comments section, the Mail's readers aren't as credulous as its authors would like to think.
There's long been something of a smear-campaign against Dawkins posing him as "strident", "shrill" etc., whereas if you read any of his books or watch any of the debates he partakes in online (there are many available) it's plainly obvious that neither is true, and such accusations merely evade the responsibility of engaging with his arguments.
Typically, however, the Mail doesn't engage critically with its subject material and prefers to paint clichés and caricatures of real people in a self-vindicating way. Well, more fool them. According to its comments section, the Mail's readers aren't as credulous as its authors would like to think.
From the article it seems his claims are not portrayed as reasonable. An individual has surely a right to pass on their own honestly held beliefs to their offspring; to call it child abuse is to simply taunt those who hold a different view. Does he not credit an individual to examine the beliefs they have been taught when young as they become an adult ?
The request to pour scorn is hardly asking for a fair hearing. It is to mock.
It is my opinion that he ought to stick to his strengths, such as teaching evolution, and leave subjects where he merely stirs up emotions and adds little or nothing more, to others. If he must discuss religion he'd be best meeting up with other extremists and arguing with them, leaving the more reasonable folk to discuss the subject amongst themselves.
The request to pour scorn is hardly asking for a fair hearing. It is to mock.
It is my opinion that he ought to stick to his strengths, such as teaching evolution, and leave subjects where he merely stirs up emotions and adds little or nothing more, to others. If he must discuss religion he'd be best meeting up with other extremists and arguing with them, leaving the more reasonable folk to discuss the subject amongst themselves.
"An individual has surely a right to pass on their own honestly held beliefs to their offspring;"
I don't see why. Does the same apply if the parent is, say, a devout Thatcherite? Or Marxist?
"The request to pour scorn is hardly asking for a fair hearing. It is to mock. "
Dawkins has not suggested religion should be mocked in schools. That is pure fabrication on the part of the Mail. He supported Michael Gove's recent policy on religious education, and supports children being taught about religions in general rather than instructed to believe in one.
I don't see why. Does the same apply if the parent is, say, a devout Thatcherite? Or Marxist?
"The request to pour scorn is hardly asking for a fair hearing. It is to mock. "
Dawkins has not suggested religion should be mocked in schools. That is pure fabrication on the part of the Mail. He supported Michael Gove's recent policy on religious education, and supports children being taught about religions in general rather than instructed to believe in one.
And while The God Delusion is fiercely argued, it does put forward genuine rebuttals and arguments and against the idea of a god. Personally, I didn't feel there was much to be insulted about in it. If you don't feel like reading his books, Dawkins has taken part in numerous debates which are publicly available online in which he does more or less repeat the arguments he puts forward in TGD.
[i]"An individual has surely a right to pass on their own honestly held beliefs to their offspring;"
I don't see why. Does the same apply if the parent is, say, a devout Thatcherite? Or Marxist?[i]
Well, yes I would agree to some extent. The difference is what else is passed on. If a child is cocooned in a world view without being exposed to alternatives that is bad -- if a child is brought up as a Christian or Muslim or Marxist or whatever but exposed to alternatives and always free to explore those alternatives, that's just responsible parenting.
I don't see why. Does the same apply if the parent is, say, a devout Thatcherite? Or Marxist?[i]
Well, yes I would agree to some extent. The difference is what else is passed on. If a child is cocooned in a world view without being exposed to alternatives that is bad -- if a child is brought up as a Christian or Muslim or Marxist or whatever but exposed to alternatives and always free to explore those alternatives, that's just responsible parenting.
Absolutely a parent has a right to pass on their political views also. And certainly the State has no bigger right to barge in and say otherwise.
Secular schools are a separate issue. They should not push one religion. But that is a different matter to refusing to allow the teaching of beliefs the parent has outside of school.
As for the book, I've heard others praise it but I can only assume they read a different one in error. I recall just getting more and more annoyed at the lack of arguments and rebuttals, and the continual mocking page after page. I resolved, for the sake of my emotional health, to put it down and note that I shouldn't bother taking his religious subject books seriously enough to read another. I don't need my blood pressure being deliberately targeted for increase like that.
Secular schools are a separate issue. They should not push one religion. But that is a different matter to refusing to allow the teaching of beliefs the parent has outside of school.
As for the book, I've heard others praise it but I can only assume they read a different one in error. I recall just getting more and more annoyed at the lack of arguments and rebuttals, and the continual mocking page after page. I resolved, for the sake of my emotional health, to put it down and note that I shouldn't bother taking his religious subject books seriously enough to read another. I don't need my blood pressure being deliberately targeted for increase like that.
Jim:I don't think the idea of not imposing your own convictions onto your child necessarily means cocooning them. My own parents never gave me any ideological/spiritual instruction. When I was very young, two reasonably close family members died within an extremely short space of time, and I'm enormously grateful to my parents for not exploiting my intellectually vulnerable state - they just told me that the people in question were very old, and that when people get old they eventually die.
Likewise, in my teens, my parents simply allowed me to take up any political colours I wished as they viewed it as my decision.
"Absolutely a parent has a right to pass on their political views also. "
Why?
Likewise, in my teens, my parents simply allowed me to take up any political colours I wished as they viewed it as my decision.
"Absolutely a parent has a right to pass on their political views also. "
Why?
I agree with him entirely – it is abuse - and I think faith schools should be abolished. Only yesterday a four year old who attends a Church of England school and was clearly worried by what he had learnt told me that bad men put thorns in Jesus’ head, then hung him on a cross and left him there until he died. Does a four year old really need to be taught about torture and cruelty and death? No doubt very shortly these imbeciles will tell this child and his classmates they’re all sinners! Sickening!
I also agree with Krom. There is a smear campaign afoot against Professor Dawkins – and every other well-known atheist - and it’s becoming commonplace outside the realms of celebrity too. Defeating rational argument isn’t an option for the religious.
I also agree with Krom. There is a smear campaign afoot against Professor Dawkins – and every other well-known atheist - and it’s becoming commonplace outside the realms of celebrity too. Defeating rational argument isn’t an option for the religious.
"As for the book, I've heard others praise it but I can only assume they read a different one in error. I recall just getting more and more annoyed at the lack of arguments and rebuttals"
There's plenty in there. In particular, he targets Intelligent Design, the idea that religious people are more moral or well-adjusted than atheists, and the idea that science and religion are separate realms. He devotes considerable time to providing arguments against all of these positions. Forgive me, but at this stage I'm going to have to express some skepticism that you've actually tried to read the book at all.
There's plenty in there. In particular, he targets Intelligent Design, the idea that religious people are more moral or well-adjusted than atheists, and the idea that science and religion are separate realms. He devotes considerable time to providing arguments against all of these positions. Forgive me, but at this stage I'm going to have to express some skepticism that you've actually tried to read the book at all.
Express what you like but if you are implying I'm a liar that your comments are unfounded.
So he has a go at extremists eh ? Well that can't be difficult. We can skip that part as irrelevant. How about while he's having a go at reasonable folk with reasonable beliefs, especially after explicitly saying mere pages before that he's not ? Respect for the man just dropped through the floor after coming across this publication.
So he has a go at extremists eh ? Well that can't be difficult. We can skip that part as irrelevant. How about while he's having a go at reasonable folk with reasonable beliefs, especially after explicitly saying mere pages before that he's not ? Respect for the man just dropped through the floor after coming across this publication.
"So he has a go at extremists eh ? Well that can't be difficult."
He has a go at the idea that the universe and the world are designed, yes. That doesn't strike me as particularly extreme, as it's a fairly common (though admittedly not universal) contention among the faithful.
"How about while he's having a go at reasonable folk with reasonable beliefs, especially after explicitly saying mere pages before that he's not ? "
Sorry, I don't understand what specifically you're referring to here.
He has a go at the idea that the universe and the world are designed, yes. That doesn't strike me as particularly extreme, as it's a fairly common (though admittedly not universal) contention among the faithful.
"How about while he's having a go at reasonable folk with reasonable beliefs, especially after explicitly saying mere pages before that he's not ? "
Sorry, I don't understand what specifically you're referring to here.
Latest Posts
Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News1 min ago
Food & Drink2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
News6 mins ago
