Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

[salvationfound]

I hope this is in the correct forum.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,14...ichard-Dawkins

Richard Dawkins recently was given a sort of interview/debate thing on BBC Hardtalk. Now
personally I wasn't really thrilled with the way the interview happened. I wasn't that impressed
one way or the other.

However I was appalled by something Richard Dawkins had said about how horrible it is to
label children. Basically labeling a child as a Catholic baby is evil. Now I would agree it
doesn't make sense to call a child that. In my opinion your not a Christian until the child
chooses to ask for Jesus anyway. I was already appalled at his attempt to call this evil.
However it got even worse when he said we don't label children other ways.

But it is done I'll give 2 examples.

An American baby. If a child is born in America we call them an American baby. Now I don't
have a problem with that but I'm not the one complaining about labeling. If calling a child
an American baby is ok but calling them a Catholic baby is somehow evil that is hypocrisy.

I understand why we label children as American babies. But I also understand why Catholics
label babies as Catholic babies. They were baptised so are Catholic babies. Again I wouldn't personally consider the child a Christian but that's a far cry from saying I would call it child
abuse. so to complain about one type of labeling and not the other is hypocrisy.

The 2nd example is what atheists have often called babies. Have you ever heard the phrase
"we are all born atheist?". Now I don't think this is true but I wouldn't call it somehow evil. And
yet some atheists consider that labeling of calling them an atheist baby acceptable but calling
them a Catholic baby is some form of child abuse. Again this is hypocrisy.

On the website I gave I found this argument:

The difference is that children who are labelled "Christian" and "Muslim" are labelled as such before they can possibly have any understanding of what this implies.

I can say the same thing myself children who are labelled atheist or American are labelled as
such before they can possibly have any understanding of what this implies. Again this is
hypocrisy. This is probably one of the most bizzarre things I've heard Dawkins say more than
that it is a very serious charge to call something child abuse the parents are innocent until
proven guilty. Since I have clearly shown reasonable doubt ,those who make the charge of
child abuse towards those who quote "label" are committing a terrible act.

[Kenny]

I have a two year old and there are several values and beliefs that I am trying to instill in her (I also have an eight month hold, but she’s a bit too young for me to do much by of instilling values and beliefs in).

I’m teaching her, for example, that she ought to be kind to her friends, that she should share her toys, that she shouldn’t be mean to her baby sister. I’m also trying to instill in her, for another example, even at this young age (through the sorts of books I read to her, what I expose her to, and how I talk to her) the idea that that she shouldn’t think badly about people based on things like ethnic background or race.

There are a number of other subjects I teach her about besides morals. Even at this early age, for example, she seems to have an interest in matters pertaining to science. She has a book about the solar system, for example, that she really likes me to read to her and I have taught her the names of all the planets in order. She also likes dinosaurs, and I tell her various things I know about them (which isn’t all that much, honestly), including telling her that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, before there were any people.

I also tell her that God made the planets, dinosaurs and people. I tell her that God loves her, that God is a spirit, that God is everywhere. I tell her that it is good for us to go to church because there we learn about Jesus.

Whenever she asks me any questions about any of the above matters, I try to answer her as honestly as I can at a level she can understand. And as far as I can tell, it’s just plain ridiculous to say that I am somehow “brainwashing” her by teaching her any of the above things.

Sure, there are systems of ethics out there that are in conflict with the values that I am trying to instill in her. There are groups out there who wouldn’t be happy about the fact that I’m trying to instill racial tolerance in her, for example. Likewise, certain young earth creationists may not like everything I teach her about science. Atheists like Dawkins would not be happy with what I tell her about religion. And, furthermore, my daughter is far too young to make an informed, rational decision about any of the above matters. She does not, as yet, know what is involved in taking a stand on any of these issues.

Of course she’s too young to make an informed rational decision about these matters! In order to become such that she can make such a decision, she has to undergo a great deal more cognitive development, and part of what undergoing such development involves is coming to develop a system of beliefs and values, a framework for looking at the world to start out with, which she can then begin to reflect upon as she gets older and begins to think more for herself. My job in the meantime is to provide her with such a framework. And of course, the one I’m going to provide her with is the one that I think offers the best, most correct way of viewing the world. Why would I offer her anything else? And why would I withhold anything from her (provided that it’s age appropriate) that I believe that I know to be the case, especially in areas (such as religion and values) that I believe are the most crucial and important parts of a correct framework for viewing the world?

In fact, I think I would be remiss as a parent if I did withhold such things from her.

[Kenny]

P.S. The above might seem a little off topic, since the topic was about “labeling” children, not teaching them things. But I think the real underlying complaint is that children are being “indoctrinated” with a system of religious beliefs and values before they are capable of making a rationally informed decision about these matters for themselves.

[David Hayward]

I agree with Kenny. There are no born Christians, nor are there born mathematicians or born evolutionary scientists, either, but that should not stop us educating children.

Not educating children is child abuse.

"Christian child", "Muslim child", etc, function as labels for the version of religious (and moral) education that they will get.

-- Much as "American child" functions as a label for someone who will grow up to have US culture and citizenship.

David

[Carpedm9587]

I have a two year old and there are several values and beliefs that I am trying to instill in her (I also have an eight month hold, but she’s a bit too young for me to do much by of instilling values and beliefs in).

I’m teaching her, for example, that she ought to be kind to her friends, that she should share her toys, that she shouldn’t be mean to her baby sister. I’m also trying to instill in her, for another example, even at this young age (through the sorts of books I read to her, what I expose her to, and how I talk to her) the idea that that she shouldn’t think badly about people based on things like ethnic background or race.

There are a number of other subjects I teach her about besides morals. Even at this early age, for example, she seems to have an interest in matters pertaining to science. She has a book about the solar system, for example, that she really likes me to read to her and I have taught her the names of all the planets in order. She also likes dinosaurs, and I tell her various things I know about them (which isn’t all that much, honestly), including telling her that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, before there were any people.

I also tell her that God made the planets, dinosaurs and people. I tell her that God loves her, that God is a spirit, that God is everywhere. I tell her that it is good for us to go to church because there we learn about Jesus.

Whenever she asks me any questions about any of the above matters, I try to answer her as honestly as I can at a level she can understand. And as far as I can tell, it’s just plain ridiculous to say that I am somehow “brainwashing” her by teaching her any of the above things.

Sure, there are systems of ethics out there that are in conflict with the values that I am trying to instill in her. There are groups out there who wouldn’t be happy about the fact that I’m trying to instill racial tolerance in her, for example. Likewise, certain young earth creationists may not like everything I teach her about science. Atheists like Dawkins would not be happy with what I tell her about religion. And, furthermore, my daughter is far too young to make an informed, rational decision about any of the above matters. She does not, as yet, know what is involved in taking a stand on any of these issues.

Of course she’s too young to make an informed rational decision about these matters! In order to become such that she can make such a decision, she has to undergo a great deal more cognitive development, and part of what undergoing such development involves is coming to develop a system of beliefs and values, a framework for looking at the world to start out with, which she can then begin to reflect upon as she gets older and begins to think more for herself. My job in the meantime is to provide her with such a framework. And of course, the one I’m going to provide her with is the one that I think offers the best, most correct way of viewing the world. Why would I offer her anything else? And why would I withhold anything from her (provided that it’s age appropriate) that I believe that I know to be the case, especially in areas (such as religion and values) that I believe are the most crucial and important parts of a correct framework for viewing the world?

In fact, I think I would be remiss as a parent if I did withhold such things from her.

You sound like a pretty decent parent. Are you brainwashing your child? Of course you are. We all do. When our children ask us questions, which they inevitably do, we answer them out of what we believe. That means if we believe something correctly, we teach them the truth. If we believe something incorrectly, we teach them things incorrectly.

Since we can't be perfect and know all things with perfect knowledge, one of the first things a parent has to accept is that some of what they teach their child will be wrong. It's inevitable. I happen to believe you are teaching your child things that are not true: that god created dinosaurs and solar systems and is this "everywhere" spirit. But what else would you teach them? It's what you believe is true.

I'm sure you think the same thing about me when I tell my children I do not believe there is a god and that I believe the idea of gods is something ancient people believed because they just didn't understand and came up with the best explanation they could think of, and people since then have accepted that without really thinking it through.

Is a child naturally an atheist? Since an infant has very little higher cognitive capability and is essentially incapable of high-level abstraction, they can't even begin to conceive of theologies and gods. By definition, they have no belief in a god, so they are a-theos: without god. In fact they are more than that - they are a-belief: they have no beliefs at all.

They will, however, begin to form ideas about such things under the influence of their culture and family and surroundings. It's amazing how quickly they can pick these things up. My wife is Christian, and read our boys a lot of bible stories in the early years. Before they were two years old they were using the word "god" and sometimes parroting pieces of the story.

I think the discussion about "labeling" kids is a silly one in this context. I am much more concerned about labeling a child "problem" or "learning disabled" or any of the other labels we too quickly apply. The religious ones will sort themselves out in time.

Dawkins continues to not impress me very much.

Michel

[Kenny]

Hey Carpedm,

Thanks for nice, balanced response. A few things by way of reply:

You sound like a pretty decent parent.

Thanks. Although I shouldn’t take too much credit. My wife has done far much more than I have by way of educating her and she has done a fantastic job.

Are you brainwashing your child? Of course you are. We all do.

I suppose you can call what parents do in the normal process of aiding their children in their cognitive development “brainwashing” if you like. But that seems like a stretch of the word to me. ‘Brainwashing’ has a connotation of being a coercive form of mental conditioning that operates, in part, by suppressing the target’s ability for rational assessment. I agree that there is a sense in which early childhood education is “coercive” – children generally don’t have a choice but to believe that they are told. But, generally, such education does not operate by suppressing the child’s ability for rational assessment (rather, it provides them with a framework for viewing the world that aids them in their cognitive development so that they can later come to make their own rational assessments).

I don’t deny that some forms of early childhood education are forms of brainwashing – these would be coercive forms of education with the aim of suppressing a child’s ability to develop into a rationally reflective being. But, I’m hard pressed to say that what happens in the process of normal cultural, moral and religious education is brainwashing in this sense.

When our children ask us questions, which they inevitably do, we answer them out of what we believe. That means if we believe something correctly, we teach them the truth. If we believe something incorrectly, we teach them things incorrectly.

Since we can't be perfect and know all things with perfect knowledge, one of the first things a parent has to accept is that some of what they teach their child will be wrong. It's inevitable.

No disagreements here.

Is a child naturally an atheist? Since an infant has very little higher cognitive capability and is essentially incapable of high-level abstraction, they can't even begin to conceive of theologies and gods. By definition, they have no belief in a god, so they are a-theos: without god.

By this characterization of what being an atheist amounts to, my computer is an atheist. I suppose you can say that if you want to, but that seems like a bit of a stretch of the word ‘atheist’ to me.

In fact they are more than that - they are a-belief: they have no beliefs at all.

From what little I know about child psychology, there’s evidence that that’s false. From what I’ve read and heard, studies of very small children suggest that children come into the world “hardwired” with certain beliefs, or at least with dispositions to form certain beliefs, about such matters as basic mathematics, the solidity and persistence of ordinary objects, certain kinetic intuitions, etc… Although, I’m no expert on these matters, and I can already think of ways of offering other kinds of interpretations of some of these results that don’t involve attributing the beliefs in question to small children. So, I won’t argue this point.

They will, however, begin to form ideas about such things under the influence of their culture and family and surroundings. It's amazing how quickly they can pick these things up.

Yes; they appear to be wired to pick up such things. It’s part of their normal cognitive development.

I think the discussion about "labeling" kids is a silly one in this context. I am much more concerned about labeling a child "problem" or "learning disabled" or any of the other labels we too quickly apply. The religious ones will sort themselves out in time.

Again, no disagreements here.

Dawkins continues to not impress me very much.

That makes two of us.

-- Kenny

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I hope Dawkins would be consistent and call calling a child an atheist, abuse.

[Crow]

OK, Maybe this is taking your thread in a direction you didn't want it to go, but this seems the place to ask-

Why does anyone care what Richard Dawkins thinks about labeling kids?

I can understand giving him a listen if he's talking about genetics. I know that I would. But why would you care whether he believes that people should or should not call their kids "Christian?" Why would his opinion there be any different than Alan Greenspan's opinion on women's fashions--in other words, why would it be something of such importance that it matters?

If we want to decide whether it's wrong or right to label kids as Christian or othewise, Richard Dawkins is pretty much like any guy on the street. He has an opinion.

I like to read Dawkins when he's talking about science. It baffles me that outside his field that people tend to assign his opinions on other subjects more importance than we would lend to our local pastor's opinion on whether Fords are better than Chevys. Each of y'all are no less qualified than Richard Dawkins in the field of how kids should be labeled in regards to religion. By all means, if this is an area that is important to you, discuss it. But Richard Dawkins is no more an authority in this area than Billy Graham is on the rate of mutation in mitochondrial DNA. Don't assign his opinion an importance that it doesn't carry.

Those are my thoughts on it.

[SpinyNorman]

Does anyone really take Dawkins seriously anymore?

[Crow]

Does anyone really take Dawkins seriously anymore?

I take him seriously in his field. He's quite good at explaining scientific concepts to those of us who aren't scientists. I like his writing style. His attacks on religion--his opinions. I wish he'd keep them out of his books just as I hope that a pastor will keep his opinion of Fords and Chevys out of his sermon, but if they do get tossed in I have my handy personal filter, aka brain, to figure them out for what they are--his beliefs and opinions.

[SpinyNorman]

I take him seriously in his field. He's quite good at explaining scientific concepts to those of us who aren't scientists. I like his writing style. His attacks on religion--his opinions. I wish he'd keep them out of his books just as I hope that a pastor will keep his opinion of Fords and Chevys out of his sermon, but if they do get tossed in I have my handy personal filter, aka brain, to figure them out for what they are--his beliefs and opinions.

But because of the way he does this...my question still stands...

[Crow]

But because of the way he does this...my question still stands...

I pretty much think of it as a character flaw. A person can have a good grasp of a subject and still be unable to keep their pet opinions and beliefs on other subjects out of their writing. Kinda like my aunt who had to toss her opinion of the foulness of well water into almost every conversation. It didn't make her any less of a fine seamstress. I still valued her instructions on sewing. She was a fine seamstress despite her obsession with the evils of well water. I learned to ignore the well water discourse when it arose.

I'm like this. Dawkins is good in his field. I chose to read his stuff. I give his opinions and beliefs within his field serious consideration.

Outside of his field, meh. His opinion is worth as much as my seamstress aunt's opinion of well water. I'm more swayed in that area by my aunt the public health nurse who drinks it daily.

[Ratnat]

I take him seriously in his field. He's quite good at explaining scientific concepts to those of us who aren't scientists. I like his writing style. His attacks on religion--his opinions. I wish he'd keep them out of his books just as I hope that a pastor will keep his opinion of Fords and Chevys out of his sermon, but if they do get tossed in I have my handy personal filter, aka brain, to figure them out for what they are--his beliefs and opinions.

I think his comments on religion and such are mostly reactionary. Sagan essentially did the same.

I think most scientists/experts simply ignore the rhetoric thrown at them from some religious quarters and feel they are taking the higher ground. Meanwhile, non-scientific ideas creep into academia and the mainstream because they are not countered by said experts.

The religious have their apologists, why shouldn't the non-religious?

Dawkins is simply the Holding of the non-religious and like Holding, he is not necessarily held to any high esteem by the whole group he is defending.

[salvationfound]

Carp that was a pretty reasonable post. I would however stray away from any concept of calling
children atheists. Not because I have a problem with the idea of labelling them but with the
fact that by giving them such a label you are putting on the same level as rocks.

In other words if babies can be called atheists because they are "without God" then one must
call rocks atheist as well. If anyone tries to differentiate between rocks and babies simply
because one is human and the other is not does not work. You can simply ask well are
fetuses atheist? Does atheism begin at birth or at conception. So I think atheists in general
should avoid this line of "we are born atheist" because that logic forces them to use that
same terminology on rocks and stuff.

Does anyone really take Dawkins seriously anymore?

Well like it or not he does have a big following. Atheists take religion seriously not because
they agree with the theology but because people follow it. I guess its the same thing.

[Crow]

I think his comments on religion and such are mostly reactionary. Sagan essentially did the same.

I think that reaction is a part of it, but the feeling that I get is that Dawkin's feelings toward religion are a bit more antagonistic that Sagan's. I'm basing that on the differing tone each one has taken.

In my personal opinion, Sagan was the better of the two in his chosen field. But that doesn't detract from Dawkin's ability to explain concepts and break them down for the non scientist, which I think is pretty darn good.

I'm a Christian, and I can't get myself worked up over Dawkin's opinion of Christianity. He doesn't like it. He's not unique in that. Personally, I feel that it's "too bad, your loss, sorry you feel that way," and keep on stepping. I'm not primarily of the apologetic mindset. Within Christianity we each have our talents and gifts and callings. Some people's lie in apologetics. Mine lie elsewhere.