[ Home ]

Its not the content of his argument that I'm criticising, its the way Dawkins chooses to present it. Calling people "child abusers" is never constructive and I would go so far as to say such behaviour has no place in polite society. Its one thing to be able to speak your mind without fear of offending someone. Its quite another to set out to deliberately insult and upset people. No matter what Dawkins or you or I may think about the practice of child indoctrination, it is an almost universal truth that parents act altruistically in what they sincerely believe to be the best interests of their offspring. The sacrifices that parents routinely make in the pursuit of their childrens' future wellbeing and happiness make them understandably sensitive to such a vile and vindictive label. Clearly Dawkins realises this but because his mission is to mobilise the non-believers, he doesn't care about offending the believers. Looking at the interplay between science and religion in a wider context, it is naive to think that vicious name-calling will achieve any goal other than entrenching both sides, potentially leading to an increase in the sort of loony fundamentalism which presumably you are against. Personally, I want to be able to wear the label of non-believer as openly and proudly as the POFs wear their labels and the whole God Delusion debate has encouraged me to do that. I think its ok to say we think what they do is strange and to point out that perhaps the reason that religions practice child-indoctrination is that it would be as easy to persuade an educated adult to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden as it would to believe in God or Allah. This being said, plenty of people believe in UFOs and the Lock Ness Monster so.... To summarise then, I do think its ok to voice our non-beliefs in public and to question believers. I do not believe its ok to go about deliberately offending people for the sake of it. If you feel that strongly about the "crime" of child-indoctrination then it makes sense to try to engage the people practicing it in a debate. If on the other hand you're acting out a sort of childish rebellious act aimed at sticking two fingers up at the authority figures of your youth, then labeling people as child-abusers is the way to go. Dawkins himself, in TGD advocates the showing of respect to POFs. To paraphrase: One should show respect for a man's religion in the same way that you respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart. He then goes on to call that same hypothetical man a child abuser and therefore acts in violation of his own argument. I rest

For Dawkins, ‘The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse, just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse.’ Of course, one could reply that the doctrine of Hell should not be understood as a threat of violence and terrible pain, but as a loving warning about the intrinsic consequences of rejecting relationship with God. Warning children not to stick their fingers in electricity sockets does not constitute child abuse; neither does warning children about the consequences of rejecting Jesus. However, there are ways and ways of framing such a warning. The doctrine of Hell can be dwelt upon in a nightmarish lurid manner, and might thereby constitute mental abuse. In this sense Dawkins is right to point out the dangers of unnecessarily traumatising children about the harsh truths of a christian reality. It is naive to state that all parents' behaviour is justified as long as they mean well. There are many instances of child abuse carried out by 'loving' parents such as foot binding, female castration, selling one's 6 year old into slavery....The hellfire and brimstone style of indoctrination is a form of mental abuse, surely you must admit this. But we are not allowed to say the words 'child' and 'abuse' in the same sentence?

Good points but I think the answer to your question depends upon whether you intend to be able to have any sort of productive dialog with these so-called child abusers. I just don't think that it gets the conversation off to a good start. Clearly you can interpret parents' sponsoring of The Book's message as a means by which they can hope to better protect their investment in their child's fertility and in this way then similar to foot-binding and female genital mutilation. However, I think you would be hard-pressed to make this argument in any forum in which you weren't already preaching to the choir (I suspect it would be hard to hear the finer points of your argument over the outraged gasps, sobs and calls to get the rope and torches...) In terms of "framing the warning" I don't remember ever being scared by visions of eternal Hell and damnation but that is beside the point. I do think its unfair to indoctrinate children. I'm just not sure what purpose is served by calling religious people child abusers. What do you think is served by such inflammatory language? If Dawkins believes this will mobilize a silent majority I am afraid he is almost certainly misinformed for whilst most people in western countries are no longer ruled by the church, when polled, they do not class themselves as atheist or even agnostic. Most people class themselves as the faith they were born into (which I agree proves the power of childhood indoctrination). His audience is in fact a relatively small proportion of society who, yes it has to be admitted, behave as intellectual cowards but I'm not sure that the prospect of allying themselves with someone who calls all POFs child abusers is particularly inviting for them either. IMO it all boils down to this: you can be militantly in the right but isolated and without influence on those whom you despise; or you can attempt to bring other people around to your point of view by trying to understand their motivations and make allowances for the paradigm in which they find themselves. Am I right in thinking you prefer the intellectual purity of the first camp? BTW kudos on parleying childhood indoctrination into "violent sodomy" - I am in awe

ok nice debate, what's next

it was a surreal experience for me to take the moderate role - I thoroughly enjoyed it but I'd like my normal job of hyperbolic overstatement and generally being argumentative for the sake of it, I'd like all that back now please if its all the same with you

yeah i think you made us all feel a little uncomfortable - ewwwww i'm still shuddering