Slight Dilemma

Beruthiel

rational wrote: »

And you would swear that a 72 year old would be sitting around reading books about evolution and having a moments of athesitic clarity about how evolution calls into question all of her beliefs "how could I have been so wrong and so stupid".

Wow. Ignorance is bliss eh?
You do realise that even the Catholic church accepts evolution.
There is no need what so ever for my mother to give up believing in god just because she knows the basics in evolution. That is not my aim here.

I dare say the woman in question has heard the basics about evolution already and still chooses to not believe it.

You assume an awful lot.
Clearly she doesn't know the basics or she wouldn't have thought we came from monkeys.

Now if she does not understand the concepts behind evolution at 72 it would be pointless giving her a DVD or book on it now.

You're so right. After all, she's 72, sure she'll be dead soon, why bother living a full life by educating yourself along the way.

Each of us continue to learn new things through out our lives, there isn't a cut off point for this you know. At least, not that I'm aware of.

She would probably not have the patience or the time to bother with it.

How would you know the limit of her patience?

Goduznt Xzst

OP, did your mother ever detail why she isn't fond of Richard Dawkins?

Beruthiel

No. But if I had to make an educated guess, I'd bet it has something to do with the God Delusion. He wasn't well known until that book came out.

Galvasean

Indeed, most religious people only know Dawkins as the Athesit (capital A no less), as opposed to the eminent scientist.

seamus

The title of the book alone seems to be the biggest problem. Rather than encourage believers to read it and listen, the title basically said, "This book thinks you're a f*cking moron".

My wife doesn't like him, even though she's never read a single thing of his nor seen him on TV.

Galvasean

My mother didn't like him either. Then she saw him on the Late Late Show and was amazed at how polite and well mannered he was. I guess that shows the difference between the actual Richard Dawkins and the rabid, foaming at the mouth zealot 'Dawkins' strawman that certain religious groups like to perpetuate.

iguana

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed, most religious people only know Dawkins as the Athesit (capital A no less), as opposed to the eminent scientist.

It's like the time he went on The Late Late Show about his new book on evolution and all Tubridy wanted to do was goad him about his atheism. The best bit was when Tubridy wheeled out a monk and his stupid smug face dropped when the monk agreed with Dawkins about evolution.

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Please also note that "evolving into humans" wasn't the plan. Just being better suited to survival was the plan. The fact that the human format was suitable was sheer accident. In fact, I personally think and Octopus shape would have been way better, as would living underwater since most of the worlds habitat is water.

This is like a discussion I was having with my mother last week about how any intelligent design would have given us better necks. Human necks are so thin and vulnerable, they snap relatively easily and can cause paralysis or death from some quite simple accidents. And we are also very vulnerable to strangulation or a slit throat. If there had been anyone putting thought into it we'd have much thicker necks with tough but flexible hides, kind of like Star Trek's Cardassians.

Dades

seamus wrote: »

The title of the book alone seems to be the biggest problem. Rather than encourage believers to read it and listen, the title basically said, "This book thinks you're a f*cking moron".

I thought (and said) the exact same thing when the book came out. Still, if he'd called it something fluffy like "Essays Pertaining to Deities" then I can't imagine the book creating half the furore (i.e. publicity) it got.

iguana wrote: »

If there had been anyone putting thought into it we'd have much thicker necks with tough but flexible hides, kind of like Star Trek's Cardassians.

And those ridged foreheads could definitely come in useful if you lost your bottle opener.

Waking-Dreams

seamus wrote: »

The title of the book alone seems to be the biggest problem. Rather than encourage believers to read it and listen, the title basically said, "This book thinks you're a f*cking moron".

My wife doesn't like him, even though she's never read a single thing of his nor seen him on TV.

Nothing sells like controversy.

Also, plenty of people hate lots of public figures based on reputation, hearsay and what not. Some of the people who were protesting outside of Michael Moore's public rallies when asked if they had even read his books or seen any of his movies, said "...No..." but that they didn't need to.

Daniel Dennett mentioned in the four horsemen discussion (with Hitch, Harris, and Dawkins) that regardless of his 'Breaking The Spell' being more courteous, and a gentler attack on religion, he still got hammered by people for it - even from reviewers in the press that weren't even devout believers themselves, but thought it insensitive and rude to even question the beliefs of people who obviously take comfort in such notions.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
I guess it's down to most people wanting validation, not truth or an alternate view. They seek out the people and the information that support the conclusions they've already reached, factual or otherwise. The only things they want to hear, are things that make them feel good, that give them comfort about who or where they are, right now.[/FONT]

'The Root of All Evil' certainly wasn't a great title for the documentary Dawkins did, but in fairness he did challenge Channel 4 on the title and lost his case. An inflamatory title certainly gets the viewers, which is all any TV network care about.

FoxT

Beruthiel wrote: »

So, went to visit my parents at the weekend.
I'm sitting in the kitchen with my mother and daughter and we brushed on life after death (I tend to try and not discuss religion or life after death with her, don't want to burst her bubble at her age, 72) anyway this time she asked me straight out so I answered honestly that there isn't one and moved swiftly on to asking her if she believed in Evolution and Darwinism.
Apparently she doesn't. She doesn't believe we came from monkeys.
My daughter tells me the look of shock on my face was hilarious. She was further amused by the fact I was speechless.

So here's my dilemma, do I give her some books on evolution? Is it even my place to do so?
My daughter thinks it would be the same as her giving me a book on religion.
But this is an accepted, scientific theory, not a made up story, so I'm not sure I agree.
So, do I leave the woman in her comfortable cocoon, or give her a book that explains evolution simply?
I'm not sure she would read something as detailed as The Selfish Gene for instance, are there simpler ones?

Am between two minds on this one.

I have read this post a couple of times.

Your mother doesn't believe in evolution.
You have a problem with this.

Why, I wonder?

There is no indication that your mother is interested in finding out more about evolution. Maybe she is perfectly happy with her own beliefs.

Do you think she has any concerns about your beliefs?
If she offered you a bible, say, how would you feel?

My point is - why proselytise?

- FoxT

Dades

FoxT, if her mother had said she was a flat-earther, would you have the same attitude?

Mark Hamill

FoxtT, If her mother said she hated black people, would you have the same attitude?

FoxT

Dades wrote: »

FoxT, if her mother had said she was a flat-earther, would you have the same attitude?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

FoxtT, If her mother said she hated black people, would you have the same attitude?

I do not have an issue with Beruthiel's mother's beliefs, nor , generally , with anybody else's.

I would distinguish between beliefs & how those beliefs manifest themselves.

If my mother thought the earth was flat, I would certainly consider it eccentric of her. However, If she was a primary school teacher, say, and attempted to pass this belief on to the children in her class, then I'd be concerned. If she tried to pass this belief on to my own children then I would resist.

If my mother hated Blacks ( or muslims, jews, travellers, whatever) Again , no issue. You are entitled to hate anything you want. However, you are not entitled to express that hatred in any way you want.
If she organised a lynch mob, I'd call the cops.

Ummm, what would you guys do? ask the boardsies?

Goduznt Xzst

FoxT wrote: »

If my mother hated Blacks ( or muslims, jews, travellers, whatever) Again , no issue. You are entitled to hate anything you want. However, you are not entitled to express that hatred in any way you want.

How would you know how your mother might be expressing her hatred?

Again the question has to be asked, if your child came up to you and said they hated black people, would you tell them they are entitled to their hatred, just not to express it in public?

Queen-Mise

Give your mother a copy of Jostein Gardner's (sp?) Sophie's World for Christmas. It is not going to answer any questions of evolution, but will raise a few philosphical questions. These questions will raise more talk - even if it is talking about how stupid philosophy is.
The reason I am suggesting this book - is that you and your mam would have the same terminology to talk about things. If your mother enjoyed this - then they are lots of other books that could be introduced.

It would be interesting if all three of you read the book - the different viewpoints of it would be fascinating. In fact - go and do it, and tell me how ye got on :cool::cool::cool:

FoxT

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

How would you know how your mother might be expressing her hatred?

Again the question has to be asked, if your child came up to you and said they hated black people, would you tell them they are entitled to their hatred, just not to express it in public?

Your first question: I might know, or I might not. I could act only on what I knew.

As to your second question, it is immaterial to the thread - we are not talking about how to raise children here. PM me or start a new thread if you want to explore that one.

Goduznt Xzst

FoxT wrote: »

As to your second question, it is immaterial to the thread - we are not talking about how to raise children here.

It is relevant. At a certain point in the parent/child symbiosis the roles begin to reverse. The child begins to teach the parents and the care giving reverses.

Please just answer the question and stop with the diversionary tactics. I don't care how you'd raise your child. Only how you'd handle this specific situation.

Would you correct this bigotry in your child? Why would you not attempt to correct this bigotry in your parent? They are both people who exist in society.

Dades

FoxT wrote: »

If my mother thought the earth was flat, I would certainly consider it eccentric of her.

I find it very difficult to believe if your mother believed the earth was flat you wouldn't slip a photo of the earth from space under her nose.

FoxT wrote: »

However, If she was a primary school teacher, say, and attempted to pass this belief on to the children in her class, then I'd be concerned. If she tried to pass this belief on to my own children then I would resist.

Why do you have a problem with children being told the same beliefs but deem the same belief acceptable for her to hold? It seems like we're back to the age thing again.

FoxT

We do not live in a 'Black & white' world, and you are not comparing like with like here. To review the issues you have raised -

The statement ' All people of xx race are inferior & should be subjugated'

is manifestly incorrect, dangerous, and harmful.



The statement ' I hate all people of xx race'
may be factually true, depending on the speaker. It is probably harmful for the speaker to have that hatred, but, like any emotion it is not intrinsically evil of itself.


The statement 'The earth is flat'

Is manifestly incorrect, but generally not very harmful.


The statement 'Evolution did not occur'

is almost certainly incorrect*, and may sometimes be somewhat harmful, but generally is probably harmless.

Because of this , I would react differently to each of the above statements.



Regarding Adult vs child - I have a responsibility to guide & support my childrens' growth & development (as best I can) which is far greater than the responsibility I have toward other adults, and therefore I would temper my responses accordingly.

If my mother did not know about evolution, I'd get her a book on it if i thought she would be interested in it. If my mother believed evolution was the work of the devil I would be uncomfortable with it but would not get wound up over it in the interests of family harmony.
If my mother was a bigot, then our relationship would probably be untenable.



* Darwin's theory is a scientific theory & like, say , Quantum theory, or Newtonian mechanics, & can be regarded as being largely true, but with the caveat that we might have a better theory in the future.

iguana

FoxT wrote: »

If my mother did not know about evolution, I'd get her a book on it if i thought she would be interested in it.

And what makes you think that Beruthiel doesn't think her mother might be interested in learning about evolution? Especially through the medium of a David Attenborough dvd. Everybody loves David Attenborough.

FoxT

I never suggested that was the case. What makes you think that I think that Beruthiel doesn't think her mother might be interested in learning about evolution?

"Everybody loves David Attenborough"
This statement is factually incorrect, but benign.

seamus

FoxT wrote: »

Is manifestly incorrect, but generally not very harmful.

Well it depends really. Someone else's beliefs are inconsequential if they do not affect how you interact with that person.

If my mother believes that the earth is flat, then she's going to freak out every time I talk about getting on an aircraft or boat in case I fall off the edge. This will affect how I interact with her, because very such journey is going to be an argument with her about the safety of such actions.

Using the more realistic argument, a person's disbelief in evolution is going to affect their ability to participate constructively in most existential and philosophical discussions because evolution completely destroys the "seven days" notion of the creator God.
George Hook yesterday had a woman on talking about the LHC and using it to investigate the conditions around the big bang, yet George was trying to start some philosophical debate about it disproving God or something, adding that he wasn't "entirely convinced" that biblical creationism was wrong. The woman did magnificently just sticking to "We're just investigating the nature of the universe" rather than get drawn into a debate with an ignoramus.

It completely removed the notion of serious discussion from the interview and since Hook is the one guiding the content he provides to listeners you can see how people's ignorance, however little, both affects those they interact with and anyone else around them.

There's nothing wrong with private belief, so long as it's private. If your belief contradicts fact, keep it to yourself or you're just trolling.

FoxT

Seamus, I agree with you.

- Some fallacious beliefs are more dangerous than others
- The appropriate reaction to them depends on a number of factors including
-> how harmful/dangerous you consider them to be
->whether the beliefs are held by an adult or a child
-> what your responsibilities are , relative to the holder of the belief
-> etc.

OP was shocked when she found out her mother didn't believe in Darwinism . I was surprised at her shock, & when I asked about it other posters (somewhat aggressively in my view) interjected with various reductio ad absurdum questions on unrelated issues like bigotry & flat earthism.

if my mother were alive today & expressed disbelief in Darwinism I would be somewhat surprised but it wouldnt be a big deal. If she was a bigot who expressed or incited hatred for others, then I would be shocked.

On darwinism, I would regard issues like, say , her health, or family harmony, as more important than trying to convert her to my point of view. If she was a 'don't know' but interested in Darwinism, I'd consider getting her a book or DVD for Christmas.

Mark Hamill

FoxT wrote: »

OP was shocked when she found out her mother didn't believe in Darwinism.

What is Darwinism?

FoxT

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is Darwinism?

http://tinyurl.com/2w94fc3

Mark Hamill

FoxT wrote: »

http://tinyurl.com/2w94fc3

Oh, you mean evolution then? Why do you call it "Darwinism"?
Do you call gravity "Galileo-ism" (Or "Newtonism")?

FoxT

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh, you mean evolution then? Why do you call it "Darwinism"?
Do you call gravity "Galileo-ism" (Or "Newtonism")?

For many non-specialists, myself included, 'Darwinism' & 'evolution' are synonymous.

The OP mentioned Darwinism in her post also - perhaps she can help you in some way? Or do you just want to nitpick with me?

iguana

FoxT wrote: »

I never suggested that was the case. What makes you think that I think that Beruthiel doesn't think her mother might be interested in learning about evolution?

This post certainly gave me that impression. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68936575&postcount=71

FoxT

I am guessing you may have picked up your impression from this sentence:


“There is no indication that your mother is interested in finding out more about evolution. Maybe she is perfectly happy with her own beliefs.”


On re-reading it, it is not a neutral as I had intended. Nevertheless it is a long jump away from stating that



“I think that Beruthiel doesn't think her mother might be interested in learning about evolution”


In any event I think this thread is pretty much exhausted. Good Luck.

sonicthebadger*

FoxT wrote: »

"Everybody loves David Attenborough"
This statement is factually incorrect...

You are SO wrong. :pac: