A note on Richard Dawkins -

Scuid Mhór

I'm actually quite sober right now so penny for your thoughts, boys and girls. Over the Christmas period I've been thinking a lot about something I read in The God Delusion (the Richard Dawkins book). It's been years since I last read it so I might be misremembering the specifics but the generally gist of the argument is that religious indoctrination of children before they reach the age of consent (or adulthood, once again I cannot quite remember) amounts to child abuse. Every religion has to rely on Churches teaching us from the cradle into our childhood because the vast majority of people, had they no previous exposure to the concept of a religion, would probably choose not to believe in it upon coming of age and being given a few holy texts and sermons and asked their thoughts on a potential conversion.

The reason I bring this up is because I think I agree with it to an extent - while I think describing it as "child abuse" is maybe a bit harsh considering religious indoctrination is so ingrained in most societal cultures as sort of a ritualistic default more than a religious experience, but I certainly do have issue with the idea that you would impose an idea on someone, an idea which cannot be proven by the scientific method and is based on faith alone, when that someone has not yet developed the necessary critical thinking skills to be able to make an informed decision in the matter. And it's not much use their parents making the decision for them considering their parents probably suffered the same fate.

However, when I have pointed this out to friends whose opinions I respect for their intellectual caliber being far greater than mine, the argument they usually make is that even if religion has no basis in fact, it's still good for shaping society and a sense of identity in the person. I feel this is a cop-out; society and identity can be constructed without needing a religion.

Anyway AH, it's been a while since I've posted here, what are your thoughts on the matter? Please don't move this to a politics forum, let's keep it light and moving.

BDI

Ever see him babysit children?

One eyed Jack

Referring to anything as child abuse was always a good way to provoke a reaction, Dawkins knows that as much as anyone else. He is of course entitled to believe whatever he wants, as is anyone else in a democratic society.

Scuid Mhór

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Referring to anything as child abuse was always a good way to provoke a reaction, Dawkins knows that as much as anyone else. He is of course entitled to believe whatever he wants, as is anyone else in a democratic society.

Thanks for articulating this better than I could - I suppose what I was trying to say is I don't think it amounts to child abuse given the way human society has evolved, however I don't agree with it either. So what should I call it? An "unethical practice" seems a bit weak to me.

One eyed Jack

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

Thanks for articulating this better than I could - I suppose what I was trying to say is I don't think it amounts to child abuse given the way human society has evolved, however I don't agree with it either. So what should I call it? An "unethical practice" seems a bit weak to me.

I guess you could just call it other people’s opinions and practices which you don’t agree with? I mean, I don’t see parents raising their children according to their beliefs and values as an unethical practice, it depends upon the beliefs and practices themselves. There are some I share, some I disagree with, and most I don’t really care about one way or the other.

The same principles can be applied to any philosophy or practices of raising children. It’s not really a question of if they were raised differently they might have a different set of beliefs and values, that’s just Dawkins stating the obvious, nothing particularly scientific or profound about it, it’s a reasonable theory anyway, just like parents who choose to raise their children according to their vegan philosophy - nothing inherently unethical about it, but if their children were being malnourished, then those parents would be held responsible for their actions which are causing their children harm. It doesn’t mean all parents who raise their children as vegan are irresponsible or guilty of unethical behaviour.

Rodin

That book is awful.
Stylistically it's a car crash.
lurching from one argument to the next at random.

Phoebas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Referring to anything as child abuse was always a good way to provoke a reaction, Dawkins knows that as much as anyone else. He is of course entitled to believe whatever he wants, as is anyone else in a democratic society.

He wrote that piece before social media reduced everything to 60 second clips and we lost the ability to understand context or nuance.

Hercule Poirot

I also read The God Delusion and like you OP it was many years ago

The thing about children being raised in a certain religion is kind of moot in the modern Western world. It is a form of indoctrination but it's definitely not child abuse - however it is lessened as time goes on because each generation is raised to ask more questions than the one that came before and it results in people like myself, and many others I know, who have turned away from their Catholic upbringings and being raised a Catholics certainly hasn't done us any harm

Scuid Mhór

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I also read The God Delusion and like you OP it was many years ago

The thing about children being raised in a certain religion is kind of moot in the modern Western world. It is a form of indoctrination but it's definitely not child abuse - however it is lessened as time goes on because each generation is raised to ask more questions than the one that came before and it results in people like myself, and many others I know, who have turned away from their Catholic upbringings and being raised a Catholics certainly hasn't done us any harm

Well, you know, I would argue that the Catholic perversion with sexual identity has left most Irish denizens incredible sexually conservative and repressed to an unhealthy degree - regardless of whether they realise it's based on either their own personal upbringing or just the way Catholicism has shaped cultural values. I think something like that is too great to simply think one's way out of as an individual, it's culturally damaging. Look at Spain, Italy, America - much happier and much more comfortable with sexual things there, getting coffee with someone isn't such a big deal and there aren't so many expectations.

All I'm trying to say is that if you are raised a Catholic, you are brought up in an environment you consider the norm and you may not realise that certain effects of it could be damaging, because you've never seen beyond that norm, you've never seen how it could be otherwise. (Obviously I don't mean you personally, I mean "you generally".)

That's only one thing that comes to mind off the top of my head, I'm sure there are numerous others. A culture of shame, for example. Self-deprecating banter because none of us are supposed to believe in ourselves. And so on.

tdf7187

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

and being raised a Catholics certainly hasn't done us any harm

Are you sure?

One eyed Jack

Phoebas wrote: »

He wrote that piece before social media reduced everything to 60 second clips and we lost the ability to understand context or nuance.

It appears from his musings on religion that Richard was never a fan of context or nuance in the first place :pac:

He hasn’t fared any better on social media since writing the book, referring to criticism of his opinions as “fireballs of hatred”, it appears he never lost the ability to exaggerate either.

Hercule Poirot

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

Well, you know, I would argue that the Catholic perversion with sexual identity has left most Irish denizens incredible sexually conservative and repressed to an unhealthy degree - regardless of whether they realise it's based on either their own personal upbringing or just the way Catholicism has shaped cultural values. I think something like that is too great to simply think one's way out of as an individual, it's culturally damaging. Look at Spain, Italy, America - much happier and much more comfortable with sexual things there, getting coffee with someone isn't such a big deal and there aren't so many expectations.

All I'm trying to say is that if you are raised a Catholic, you are brought up in an environment you consider the norm and you may not realise that certain effects of it could be damaging, because you've never seen beyond that norm, you've never seen how it could be otherwise. (Obviously I don't mean you personally, I mean "you generally".)

That's only one thing that comes to mind off the top of my head, I'm sure there are numerous others. A culture of shame, for example. Self-deprecating banter because none of us are supposed to believe in ourselves. And so on.

You make a valid point regarding Ireland's relationship with Catholicism - I was raised in England and I do forget what it was like to grow up as a Catholic in Ireland. In England, even in the 80's/90's, it was less fire and brimstone and more love one another. I suppose while I still wouldn't deem it as child abuse or anything near kind of nonsense there is still an element of "toe the line" especially in rural areas

ILoveYourVibes

A lot of things get attributed to Richard Dawkins ....a lot of things that seem suspiciously stupid for such a highly educated man to have thought or said. I am not going to research whether you are remembering correctly or not ..but i am just sayin!

Quantum Erasure

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I was raised in England and I do forget what it was like to grow up as a Catholic in Ireland. In England, even in the 80's/90's, it was less fire and brimstone and more love one another.

I went through primary school in the 80's and 90's too, and it was all love one another when I was growing up in Ireland too, but there must have been some undercurrent of sexual repression aswell, that I can't particularly put my finger on, or remember... There wasn't so much 'fire and brimstone' at all, the only explicit thing I can remember is Sinead O'Conner being shamed for appearing in a net bag that you'd buy oranges in....

Gynoid

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

Well, you know, I would argue that the Catholic perversion with sexual identity has left most Irish denizens incredible sexually conservative and repressed to an unhealthy degree - regardless of whether they realise it's based on either their own personal upbringing or just the way Catholicism has shaped cultural values. I think something like that is too great to simply think one's way out of as an individual, it's culturally damaging. Look at Spain, Italy, America - much happier and much more comfortable with sexual things there, getting coffee with someone isn't such a big deal and there aren't so many expectations.

Spain and Italy were and in many ways still are quite strongly Catholic. There has not been the same level of reflexive repulsion towards religion as one finds in Ireland where everything from sexual repression to watery spuds is angrily blamed on "the Church".
As for people in Spain, Italy and America being much happier - I would question the evidence. They dont seem to be exceptionally happier than anyone else. The Med countries you mention have strong machismo elements in their countries and in many ways a more traditional sexuality than exists in Ireland now. I work with a good few young people from the Med and they are quite charmingly old fashioned in unexpected ways.
As for Americans, I dont think they could be held up as any shining example of happiness. They are too disparate in terms of cultures and lifestyles for a start, and if anything FAR more religious than Europeans.
This theory of sexual repression in the Irish that is so often mooted is not something I agree with either. People seem to shag at will and have been doing so since forever. But what is sexual unrepression? I remember moving to the big bad continent as a young girl, back in the dreadfully repressed long ago when children actually packed their bags and cheerfully and with parental blessing left home at 16 or 17 (!) to make their way, and being repulsed by the very evident existence of sex shops, sex cinemas, and prostitution. Is that really vibrant sexuality? I found there was a current of sleaziness in the societies in France and Germany, an indelible cheaping of the sex urge and act . If that is unrepressed they can have it.

Anyways have gone on too long. And yet left out too much Tl:dr Im not buying a tired and worn out and overused old narrative. Plus Dawkins is a bore

ILoveYourVibes

Gynoid wrote: »

Spain and Italy were and in many ways still are quite strongly Catholic. There has not been the same level of reflexive repulsion towards religion as one finds in Ireland where everything from sexual repression to watery spuds is angrily blamed on "the Church".
As for people in Spain, Italy and America being much happier - I would question the evidence. They dont seem to be exceptionally happier than anyone else. The Med countries you mention have strong machismo elements in their countries and in many ways a more traditional sexuality than exists in Ireland now. I work with a good few young people from the Med and they are quite charmingly old fashioned in unexpected ways.
As for Americans, I dont think they could be held up as any shining example of happiness. They are too disparate in terms of cultures and lifestyles for a start, and if anything FAR more religious than Europeans.
This theory of sexual repression in the Irish that is so often mooted is not something I agree with either. People seem to shag at will and have been doing so since forever. But what is sexual unrepression? I remember moving to the big bad continent as a young girl, back in the dreadfully repressed long ago when children actually packed their bags and cheerfully and with parental blessing left home at 16 or 17 (!) to make their way, and being repulsed by the very evident existence of sex shops, sex cinemas, and prostitution. Is that really vibrant sexuality? I found there was a current of sleaziness in the societies in France and Germany, an indelible cheaping of the sex urge and act . If that is unrepressed they can have it.

Anyways have gone on too long. And yet left out too much Tl:dr Im not buying a tired and worn out and overused old narrative. Plus Dawkins is a bore

France is still strongly catholic too a little protestant but the catholic church is stronger there than here now. The catholic church has a strong presence in france.

In France the catholic church will weigh in on political debates about immigration etc defending catholic schools etc

Germany is religious too too...only protestant. They have ' christian' political parties that are very popular.

I think priests used to be powerful in towns ...when they lost this they tried to make up for it by having power in politics or debates. It just made them the enemy.

The media worldwide pays too much attention to what the church says.

JohnnyFlash

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

France is still strongly catholic too a little protestant but the catholic church is stronger there than here now. The catholic church has a strong presence in france.

In France the catholic church will weigh in on political debates about immigration etc defending catholic schools etc

Germany is religious too too...only protestant. They have ' christian' political parties that are very popular.

I think priests used to be powerful in towns ...when they lost this they tried to make up for it by having power in politics or debates. It just made them the enemy.

The media worldwide pays too much attention to what the church says.

You talk simply incredible amounts of wet tarmac. Like utter gibberish. Germany - Protestant only?

EmmetSpiceland

Whatever about parents raising their kids as part of a religion they believe in you’d have to wonder about the “once a year” mass-goers who sign their children up to a religion that they have no real belief in.

I mean, that’s just pathetic. All about the big day out for communion and confirmation but with none of the “faith”.

The type who still thinks the “immaculate” conception relates to the virgin birth of Jesus or, worse still, that the bread and wine are only “representations” of Jesus’ body and blood.

nozzferrahhtoo

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

I might be misremembering the specifics but the generally gist of the argument is that religious indoctrination of children before they reach the age of consent (or adulthood, once again I cannot quite remember) amounts to child abuse.

While "child abuse" is, as you noted yourself, a little strong and intentionally emotive.... I think what he actually said is slightly different to how you are remembering it. What he described as a form of child abuse is telling children what they are before the age of reason. Such as telling your child, or other people, this is a catholic child.

By way of analogy he suggested how weird it would sound to your ear if a parent said to you "Here is my 5 year old son.... he is a Tory". Instantly it would strike you as weird that a 5 year old has a political alignment. You would quickly realise the parent is likely projecting THEIR political alignments onto the child.

What Dawkins wanted in his book then is for a sentence like "This is a catholic child" or "This is a muslim child" or "This is an atheist child" to hit your ear in just the same way. Some parents want to make their children into carbon copies of themselves, while other parents want to be their child's guide as they find out for themselves who and what they are in life. I strive to be the latter type myself.

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

it's still good for shaping society and a sense of identity in the person. I feel this is a cop-out; society and identity can be constructed without needing a religion.

Sure it might be A way to shape society and identity, but does that mean it is a GOOD way to do so? I do not think that is a given. After all removing your leg is a good way to treat a gangrenous toe infection. The infection will be gone. But that does not mean there are not other much BETTER ways to treat the infection.

As the oft misquoted "opiate of the people" passage says to us: Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower.

Religion has a myriad of poor to awful effects. If it has anything of utility in it then it is hard to find, but WHEN we find it so far I am not aware of anything that can not be achieved or attained in other better ways. Rather than chop off the whole leg, we can distil religion for anything of actual worth it might have, and seek to attain those things in better ways without the religious nonsense, unsubstantiated fantasy, and dangerously divisive dogmas.

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

So what should I call it? An "unethical practice" seems a bit weak to me.

Pretty Poor Parenting works for me. And it even has pretty alliteration in it too

Lady Spangles

If I remember rightly, Dawkins was actually referring to heavily indoctrinated children such as those child preachers you get in the US. But there is a valid argument behind the broader context too. Children are raised to believe in long-debunked lies, made to feel guilt and shame on the basis of said myths and threatened with eternal damnation if they fail to live up to a set of rules and expectations set out in various holy books etc.

That's pretty grim, when you think about it. But it's become so normalised that no one in religious societies really thinks about it. Whatever way you look at it, Dawkins has a point.