Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[strathmeyer]

It is wrong to lie to children, but it isn't child abuse.

Equating lying to children with abusing them is the fundamental mistake you make and it is what I am criticizing you and Dawkins for.

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

Doesn't that render the term abuse meaningless?

 

[andyandy]

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

how about telling your wife when asked that they look lovely, despite you actually thinking they've started to look a bit frumpy?

or telling your kid when asked that you enjoyed their violin solo at school, when really you didn't?

Telling the truth would cause hurt, and "abuse" in these cases would mean saving someone's feelings from that hurt.

 

[andyandy]

Dr. Dawkins is Humble Brilliant Man who works to find out specific facts about our condition, and them insures that the masses know about them, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't think he is god (though in many ways he is) and neither do his readers.

In what of the many ways is dawkins god?

 

[articulett]

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

And lets not pretend that people aren't telling the kiddies that they will live happily ever after for believing this lie. Parents just indoctrinate because to them it's like inoculation-- protecting the kiddies from Pascal's silly wager.

They don't think, because our culture has just come to expect that everyone props up the delusion. All this semantic bickering and critique of Dawkins and villification of his words or those who speak out against religion... this notion that not ALL religion's are harmfull-- all of it... is just a way of avoiding the question-- the elephant in the room. Is there a god? Is there any good reason to believe there is? If not, then there are a lot of people claiming to know things they simply cannot know. And they are manipulating trusting people with these claims and fortifying them with fear and briberies. Who cares if you call it "child abuse" or "lying" or "manipulation" or "evolutionarily advantageous"-- Is it true?

Is it true? If it's not true quit blathering around trying to get others to ask the question and explore the answers. Quit villifying those who say that it's wrong to lie to people...to mislead... to manipulate-- isn't it better to at least say, "I don't know" or "no one knows" or "uncle Fred believes..."

I just hear all this critique of Dawkins and villification of anyone who dares say religion is "child abuse" or anything similar is proof of the way religion has taught us all to ignore the ugliness... never attribute the evil to god... but praise the invisible guy without question for all that is good. It's all distracting crap to keep people from hearing the truth.

The Emperor is Naked. He always has been. It's not necessary to keep pretending that he's wearing clothes. We've evolved. The people who benefit from telling these tales are lying even if they've convinced themselves they are not. Scriptures are primitive barbaric texts written most obviously by humans to benefit themselves. They are not divine.

Sloan may have wished for a different book, but the public wanted just to know whether there's any good reason to believe in a god. And no one can ask the questions and present the case quite as well as Dawkins can. Hopefully there will be many more children not subject to idiotic indoctrination as in Jesus Camp because of continued raised awareness of this nuttiness and proud ignorance in the name of a delusion. Maybe the rest of the world can then get up to date on science and the benefits that come from being scientifically literate. Muslims will have to dismantle their religion from within...via doubt... because whenever you fight fundamentalists of any stripe..they just invent new reasons to believe or think that satan is tempting them to doubt They where their trials for their faith as a badge of honor just as the families of the hijackers and the hijackers themselves do.

When you tell people they need faith... you create people who need faith.

Chalk me up as squarely in the camp of Dawkins in this debate... Wilson makes no sense to me. Is he too chicken to say that religion is a lie... it's cost a lot of lives and caused a lot of suffering and it's time to grow up and out the liars or make them provide evidence of their claims.

 

[articulett]

In what of the many ways is dawkins god?

Dawkins isn't god, but he offers real truths... verifiable truths... in a way humans can understand-- like Sagan-- he translates what Science knows to the masses even as he's vilified by religionists every step of the way because they know that his facts put their power in doubt. Original sin looks pretty lame when you understand the facts. He doesn't have to share his passion. But he does. And in comparison those claiming to have hidden truths and access to divine sources seem like the snake oil salesmen they are. Those who criticize him are seldom people who have added to the mass understanding or furthering of any true or useful knowledge... and nothing he does will allow them to concede that maybe he is a damn special human to have on this planet-- special like Sagan-- Darwin-- Newton-- Galileo-- special because he can synthesize humanities combine knowledge and explain it to lay people with eloquence and humor and clarity.

The critics seem jealous or distracting in an attempt to keep people from hearing Dawkins-- to me, the criticisms seem so tangential... as though they didn't read him or understand him or get an inkling of the important things he has to share. I mean Sloan could have written a similar review about Cosmos... because his review was about what he wanted the book to be about-- and had nothing to do with "the god delusion".

 

[qayak]

I mean Sloan could have written a similar review about Cosmos... because his review was about what he wanted the book to be about-- and had nothing to do with "the god delusion".

Exactly. This was the argument I got into with the pastor in the coffeeshop. He insisted Dawkins' thesis was wrong, that Dawkins should have been arguing something else.

Completely absurd to me and the fact that the pastor didn't know what the general theme of the book was led me to believe he didn't read it but had read a review and adopted it as his point of view. Perhaps he read Sloan.

 

[qayak]

how about telling your wife when asked that they look lovely, despite you actually thinking they've started to look a bit frumpy?

Telling the truth would cause hurt, and "abuse" in these cases would mean saving someone's feelings from that hurt.

I concede this point to you. Now, can you explain how this applies to the systematic lying to children done in the name of religious education? How will it cause hurt to tell them the truth? How does lying save them from this hurt?

 

[qayak]

Doesn't that render the term abuse meaningless?

It make us realize that there are degrees of abuse. Everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of at what point one needs to step in and do something about the abuse but in general we will all cluster fairly close together.

This applies to our disagreement on Dawkins. I can respect that you do not think moderate religious education is abusive enough to children for you to take action. On the other hand, I think it is abusive enough to begin doing something about. In this discussion we are probably occupy the two extreme positions. It doesn't make either one of us bad, it just makes us individuals.

 

[articulett]

Exactly. This was the argument I got into with the pastor in the coffeeshop. He insisted Dawkins' thesis was wrong, that Dawkins should have been arguing something else.

Completely absurd to me and the fact that the pastor didn't know what the general theme of the book was led me to believe he didn't read it but had read a review and adopted it as his point of view. Perhaps he read Sloan.

Yes! It's always the courtier's reply http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Everything to change the topic from whether it's true and if not whether it's good to telling a lie and claiming it's about higher truths.

All these distractions and vilifying and semantics and words used to avoid the simple question:

Is it true?

Is god an illusion?

That's the question people want answered and that's what all the critiques of Dawkins seem to be to me. They all fall under the courtiers reply--they're all tangential opinions and "disappointments" or semantic diversions. When the facts are not in favor of what you want to believe or talk about... what else is there for one to do.

I always wonder if people are affected by some long ago pascals wager notion that was inculcated when they are young... and hence this endless verbiage that never addresses the point and makes those who bring people back to the point the victim of derision or vilification or semantic silliness. They aren't aware of what they are doing... but they all are doing just that. Missing the point completely.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It make us realize that there are degrees of abuse. Everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of at what point one needs to step in and do something about the abuse but in general we will all cluster fairly close together.

This applies to our disagreement on Dawkins. I can respect that you do not think moderate religious education is abusive enough to children for you to take action. On the other hand, I think it is abusive enough to begin doing something about. In this discussion we are probably occupy the two extreme positions. It doesn't make either one of us bad, it just makes us individuals.

Vilifying people for raising their children the way they see fit by calling the way they raise their children "child abuse" is bad and that is what I am calling you and articulett on.

I don't think that you would put up with Michael Savage calling liberalism a "mental disorder" in order to deride it and then saying that his feeling that way and you feeling differently "makes us individuals".

So why do you supposedly apply such a double standard to your approach to religion?

 

[qayak]

Vilifying people for raising their children the way they see fit by calling the way they raise their children "child abuse" is bad and that is what I am calling you and articulett on.

I don't see it as bad at all. There are a lot of things that people do with children that are bad. They don't see it that way but it doens't mean they are right.

I understand your position but I don't see it that way. I have no problem sticking up for a victim even if they are being abused by a "nice person." The hard part for me is deciding where the line gets drawn between "abuse" and "abuse that I will speak out against." Obviously, philosophically, I take a harder line with religion than I do in practice but I have stepped in where children were being abused on religious grounds. For instance, when a 50 year old man grabs a 5 year old child and tells them that they are going straight to hell for falling asleep at the table in a restaurant while the adult was saying grace. (It was after midnight!.)

I don't think that you would put up with calling liberalism a mental disorder in order to deride it and then saying that his feeling that way and you feeling differently "makes us individuals".

So why do you supposedly apply such a double standard to your approach to religion?

You are correct. I wouldn't put up with it. But why am I applying a double standard? If I didn't have a basis to believe that religion was child abuse, I certainly wouldn't argue it and if there was as good a case to be made that liberalism was a mental disorder, I wouldn't argue against it.

This is completely a matter of where I stand on the issue which I am sure it is for you as well. I am not holding this position so that I can deride religion. I deride religion because I hold this postion based on the evidence and reason.

 

[articulett]

Vilifying people for raising their children the way they see fit by calling the way they raise their children "child abuse" is bad and that is what I am calling you and articulett on.

I don't think that you would put up with Michael Savage calling liberalism a "mental disorder" in order to deride it and then saying that his feeling that way and you feeling differently "makes us individuals".

So why do you supposedly apply such a double standard to your approach to religion?

Why do you stalk people from thread to thread to continue to bring up your religious apologetics. I don't know if Michael Savage is a JREF member or if your diversions have anything to do with this OP or any OP. It sound like his "opinion" on par with Ann Coulters and, as such, I'd pay similar heed to it. It's an opinion. It's an opinion of many of those who think homosexuality is a mental disorder, I imagine. Or perhaps I'd mock it, the way I mock religion... or maybe I'd point out that Mijo is once again trying to hijack a thread to be a religious apologist and vilify those who say otherwise with tangential, off-topic nonsense. The bad guys aren't the one's pointing out religions abuses...its people like you running around with your apologetics and your claims that not ALL religions are bad so how dare anyone call lying to kiddies child abuse or how dare anyone say "god is a delusion". All the bulls hit-- nothing is said. Spin spin spin just to avoid the facts in the OP. This thread is about Dawkins and Sloan. Had you read Dawkins then maybe someone other than you would care about your opinion on the topic. The other thread was about a creationist tour guide lying to children. Neither thread is about the pros and cons of religion or what opinions mijo demands proof for or what he thinks is ironic or unfair or whatever other logical fallacy you pretend to understand.

The more you traipse your apologetics about, the more your creationist tendencies show, you know... you can't keep up the delusion by covering for every creationist or religious misdeed while obfuscating basic understanding of evolution and showing the readily recognizable arrogant/ignorance combination associated with the likes of rttjc--only much milder, a tad less angry... and a smidgen smarter. Start your own thread for you religious apologetics and your fatwah against anyone who dares to call you on it or anyone who successfully understands and can convey evolution. I think rttjc started just the thread for that. You can work yourself in an anti-atheist frenzy there.

 

[newlyfound]

In what of the many ways is dawkins god?

The emphesis was on the "He doesn't think he is god and neither do his readers" part. What was between the parentheses was one of my own private thoughts about him, being one of his newly subjugated admirers. I say "subjugated" because I am not the scientific type at all, and that not because I am stupid but only thanks to my crapy religious upbringing (one more proof). Since you asked the question, I'd day for starters, Science is responsible about getting mankind outta the woods as well as out of the dark ages. One could add out of ignorance, disease, and many other ills well known to mankind. In this sense, Science is Mankind's Savior. I am not telling you this, I am just letting you know about my humble/modest level of awareness (since it is kind of a part of answering your question).

Religionists tell one A story and just expect them to take it as is much like conmen expect their victims to bite the bate without question. If one innocently asks for clarification, then such terms as faith, hell, sacrednes, god come up and ...that's it. It's basically up to one to use their heads in association to what meanings such terms hold, how they correlate to each other and shut up or else.

Science and scientists on the other hand, allow people to breath, actually they invite and encourage them to. That is while working, and very hard, to clarify the questions the church fail to answer. One of them is Dawkins. The difference between scientists like him and clergymen, is while clergymen assume what they have been told is true and just sleep on it even though it's flawed, guys like Dawkins go out and actually do the work (the good old fashion way) that will either prove or refute what needs to be. They settle "accounts", resolve different equations, clear mysteries etc. If there is a god out there, this is what he is probably about: hard work and consistency. As I said earlier, science now a days virtually supports as well as permeates all aspects of our lives. Much like christians claim the holy spirit does in a way ("He is in all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17). What hint does that send us? to them Christ is the Cornerstone upon which a christian life must be build as the following verse indicates:
"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." --Ephesians 2:20--

One can very reasonably say Science is the chief cornerstone to modern life. Just imagine it pull out of our lives in vacuum type of motion and see the armageddon that will ensue. Of course, Science is nothing without its body, the body of scientists that keep it "running", its fuel and its heart as well. That's where Daddy Dawkins as well as his buddies pop up again. Maybe I was wrong to associate him with god but he most definitely is one of her hearts. Thank you for asking . I hope this answered your question.

 

[articulett]

Doesn't newlyfounds newfound freedom mean anything to you apologists...

I think most former believers are very glad not to believe and don't want the delusions inflicted on their children. It's kind of angst provoking to tell a smart kid that their eternity depends them believing a certain story. When I was a kid I wanted scientists to be doing the MDC on these guys... I mean OUR ETERNITY WAS AT STAKE--or so people were saying... though they seemed amazinging cavalier about the fact that there was a lot of different opinions about who was saved and damned.

I think the truth matters a lot. I think it's wrong to lie to kids. I think it's wacky the way people blather about all sorts of things but the TRUTH. Is there any good reason to think there are higher truths? No? Excellent... I don't have to worry about my eternity and I can bite from the tree of knowledge all I want in this life... without worrying about the judgement of a-holes -- invisible or carnal. I'm smart enough to understand the facts for myself, thank you. And, oddly enough, I find my life to be much more moral than those who want to inflict their delusions and bigotry upon others.

Stick up for humans and truth and science-- not delusions and fear and religions. How long do we have to defer to this fairytale?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

how about telling your wife when asked that they look lovely, despite you actually thinking they've started to look a bit frumpy?

Tell her the truth. Tactfully. Otherwise you're playing a game.

or telling your kid when asked that you enjoyed their violin solo at school, when really you didn't?

Or you could give an honest and fair appraisal based on their experience.

Telling the truth would cause hurt, and "abuse" in these cases would mean saving someone's feelings from that hurt.

Telling the truth in these examples is, IMO, always better than playing games or deluding people into thinking they have more talent than they actually do.

 

[andyandy]

I concede this point to you. Now, can you explain how this applies to the systematic lying to children done in the name of religious education? How will it cause hurt to tell them the truth? How does lying save them from this hurt?

my comment was simply pointing out the error in strathmeyer's logic. We were i believe trying to nail down a rigorous definition of "abuse" sufficient for use with regards to religion. Direct applicability was neither implied nor required.

since i've answered your question, how about you answer mine as to

why you think atheism is an ideology

how you know (with examples) that many of Dawkins' critics who purport to be atheists really aren't.

you've been very reticent on both points since they were raised quite some time ago.

 

[andyandy]

Tell her the truth. Tactfully. Otherwise you're playing a game.

what game? Are you honestly saying that white lies told to protect other people's feelings are wrong?

"Actually, since the birth of our second child you've really gone downhill"

"son, I know you practised every day for the last six months for that concert, but I thought it was dreadful."

 

[articulett]

Tell her the truth. Tactfully. Otherwise you're playing a game.



Or you could give an honest and fair appraisal based on their experience.



Telling the truth in these examples is, IMO, always better than playing games or deluding people into thinking they have more talent than they actually do.

Moreover, these are opinions... they can change... they aren't measurable. There are ways to answer questions being both honest and kind.

But religion is a belief. It has not claim to truth while pretending it is. Lies are wrong. Threatening kids with hell if they don't believe a ridiculous story is wrong. Telling people that believing a certain way is wrong. I cannot believe the smoke and mirrors people toss about in order to allow religions to continue this abuse of trusting people. Nobody is advocating telling grandma that there is no heaven-- but please quit pretending that it's good and necessary to inflict this crap upon people.

Dawkins has facts. He speaks out against the "god delusion". People appreciate that. All the rest seems like blather to me to avoid acknowledging these facts and vilify non-belief so as to protect the purposeful infliction of these nonsensical memes on trusting people.

And you are changing the subject andyandy into what degree of lying is acceptable. You seem to have a vested interest in keeping the delusion alive and you dislike Dawkins' mortal blow to the fairytale. If I get a choice in the matter--don't lie to me; Don't lie to my kid. I'd rather not know something than believe a lie. I think Dawkins is a much more honest, intelligent, and matter of fact man with ready facts than all his critics combined. Their arguments are endlessly tangential... all about not ALL religions being bad or whether its okay to call religion child abuse or what level of lying to kids is fine or some nebulous good that can come of the lies-- all of it ignoring the fact-- Religion proffers some really primitive beliefs and enforces it with threats of hell. These beliefs are strongly correlated with scientific ignorance on par with the Pope's suppression of Galileo's knowledge. That's wrong. Dawkins aims to right it. The apologist aim to keep the delusion alive for some unknown namby pamby reason and to vilify those who dare to say the emperor is naked as a jaybird. Always was, actually. But hey, you can learn about DNA and know the actual history of life on earth. Verifiable stuff. The truth that is the same for everyone. And there's no hell for finding this stuff out.

That's a damn important message you keep ignoring andyandy.

 

[andyandy]

You seem to have a vested interest in keeping the delusion alive and you dislike Dawkins' mortal blow to the fairytale.

yes it's all a conspiracy. Everyone's out to "get" Dawkins. Everyone who offers any criticism of you is an apologist. They're probably fundamental christains in disguise. You're starting to sound like you belong in the CT forum.....

That's a damn important message you keep ignoring andyandy

good frickin grief. What message am I ignoring? I've posted hundreds (if not thousands) of times on religion in the past 18 months or so - and with your general sentiment I wholly agree. Quite frankly I've posted my opinions so often I'm pretty weary of the topic - so don't dictate to me exactly what I should contribute to every thread - that's really rather arrogant.

I dislike religion, you dislike religion. Apparently I don't hate religion as much as you - that's hardly surprising we live in very different countries with regards to religious influence. But this is not good enough for you. I like Dawkins, you like Dawkins. Apparently because I don't think that every word that Dawkins says is true, this is not good enough for you. So because of that I am now an "apologist," because of that you can now start misrepresenting my posts, because of that you are immune from any criticism, because of that you can lie, hurl insults and be thoroughly unpleasant to anyone and everyone. Spare me your rhetoric and spare me your sanctimonious lectures.