# Theists, agnostics, beleivers: Have you attempted to read a book by Richard Dawkins? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623 "2009-09-18T18:06:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/101 "2009-09-21T20:45:43Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > “Unquestioning”, definitely, but also “belief”. Rabbinic Judaism is based on For belief, I know my rabbi doesn’t believe in an active Biblical god; she’s told me so. I would be shocked if more than five people at my (3000-strong) shul believed the events involving the character of Yahweh in the Bible were literally true. It’s just not the way our system works. An “active biblical god” might not be a modern interpretation. But does that mean that your rabbi doesn’t believe there ever was a divine being, perhaps at creation, or ancient times? It seems to me that if you remove a belief in a supreme being from Judiasm, past, present and future, there’s not a heck of a lot left. A bunch of rabbis debating what? Aren’t they debating what god is and wants? > [@Pleonast](#): > > Mainstream Christianity does not involve unquestioning belief in God–there’s even a whole book in the Bible, Job, devoted to questioning. I look at the Job story as more of an example of _UNquestioning_ belief. Didn’t Job hold to his god thru thick and thin? Might I also refer you to John 3:16 and the story of Abraham being told to kill his son? In my bible school, that was considered to be an example of the ultimate of unquestioning belief and a shining example to strive for. So I’d say mainstream Christianity certainly does involve it and holds it in the highest regard. Which I believe is one of Dawkins’ main points. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/102 "2009-09-21T21:00:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In short, Dawkins believes that Humphrey’s thesis is correct: religious parents should be prevented by law from raising their children. I’m not quite sure how you manage to come to this conclusion on the basis of these statements. Dawkins is indeed opposed to the indoctrination of children, and in my opinion rightly so; however he has never to the best of my knowledge advocated the state separating children from their parents for this purpose. The most relevant result I managed to return from google was someone reporting a speech Dawkins gave at Cal Tech; > [@](#): > > Richard Dawkins does not believe in coercing religious people, and he does not endorse any kind of totalitarian action to separate children from religious instruction. [telecomtally.com](http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2006/12/richard_dawkins_and_petitions.html) Mere facts however don’t appear to cloud **ITR champion** ’s judgment. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/103 "2009-09-21T21:04:01Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > An “active biblical god” might not be a modern interpretation. But does that mean that your rabbi doesn’t believe there ever was a divine being, perhaps at creation, or ancient times? > > It seems to me that if you remove a belief in a supreme being from Judiasm, past, present and future, there’s not a heck of a lot left. A bunch of rabbis debating what? Aren’t they debating what god is and wants? > > I look at the Job story as more of an example of _UNquestioning_ belief. Didn’t Job hold to his god thru thick and thin? > > Might I also refer you to John 3:16 and the story of Abraham being told to kill his son? In my bible school, that was considered to be an example of the ultimate of unquestioning belief and a shining example to strive for. So I’d say mainstream Christianity certainly does involve it and holds it in the highest regard. Which I believe is one of Dawkins’ main points. Judaism is a religion concerned with _actions_, not beliefs. In general, those raised in a culture of Christianity do not really understand what this means: they are viewing Judaism through the lens of their own cultural expectations even (especially) where they have rejected Christianity as a belief-system. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/104 "2009-09-21T21:08:41Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I look at the Job story as more of an example of _UNquestioning_ belief. Didn’t Job hold to his god thru thick and thin? There was a lot of questioning in the middle. The point of the story is that Job ended up keeping his faith, despite the questioning. > [@](#): > > Might I also refer you to John 3:16 and the story of Abraham being told to kill his son? In my bible school, that was considered to be an example of the ultimate of unquestioning belief and a shining example to strive for. So I’d say mainstream Christianity certainly does involve it and holds it in the highest regard. Which I believe is one of Dawkins’ main points. John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”) doesn’t talk about doubt or lack of it–it’s about the reward for belief in God’s love. The Abraham and Isaac story is about obedience to God, not unquestioning belief in God. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/105 "2009-09-21T21:14:37Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > I’m not quite sure how you manage to come to this conclusion on the basis of these statements. He is citing with approval from another person who is saying just that: that religious parents should not be allowed by society to raise their children. How can this _not_ be reasonably taken as Dawkins approving of the idea, when he says in black and white that he approves? The fact that on _another occasion_ he rejected a petition arguing for gov’t control in this area (after having signed it) because it is “too Orwellian” isn’t determinative. The question was, I thought, whether he had _ever_ written approvingly of the idea. The answer is clear: he has. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/106 "2009-09-21T21:15:17Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > I have a question for you: do you think that every one of the conflicts Dawkins lists in that paragraph would be a non-issue if no one believed in an active supernatural god? I don’t harbor any delusions that we would live in a shiny happy utopia, but yes, I believe the specific conflicts he lists there would be drastically tempered if not non-existent. You can say 9/11, for instance, was ultimately a land-dispute, but why are they so rabidly defensive of a chunk of dirt? They think God gave it to them. You can say any of them are ethnic or cultural disputes, but you can’t remove religion and assume the ethnicity and culture stays the same. It’s too large a part. > [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](#): > > I don’t like the fact that many, not all, but many of Dawkin’s arguments can be easily refuted by anyone with any sense, atheist or otherwise. > > For example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has become a favorite of his. He equates it with the belief in the Judeo-Christian God, Zeus, etc. The problem with thinking of God as being equally absurd is the deeply rooted logic and reasoning behind God, whether convincing to you or not, as opposed to the stupid for the sake of stupid FSM. > > Silly Dawkins. It’s already been suggested that you explain what this “deeply rooted logic and reasoning” behind God is, and you decided to refuse. Silly Blut Aus Nord. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/107 "2009-09-21T21:44:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > He is citing with approval from another person who is saying just that: that religious parents should not be allowed by society to raise their children. > > How can this _not_ be reasonably taken as Dawkins approving of the idea, when he says in black and white that he approves? > > The fact that on _another occasion_ he rejected a petition arguing for gov’t control in this area (after having signed it) because it is “too Orwellian” isn’t determinative. The question was, I thought, whether he had _ever_ written approvingly of the idea. The answer is clear: he has. I haven’t read _The Mind Made Flesh_ personally, however from reading a few available reviews, the solution proposed by Nicholas Humphrey appears to be “universal education in science”. Your premise that Humphrey is suggesting state separation of children from religious parents, appears to be undermined by what Humphrey actually says, and similarly what Dawkins has communicated in a speech on the matter. The petition that you talk of, initially supported by Dawkins, who later recanted on the idea, was concerning faith schools and the prohibition of the teaching of creationism. I would certainly be in support of such an action in the public sphere. Such schools should not get the financial backing of government, which is unfortunately currently provided in the UK. This is in no way malleable into the idea of removing children from religious parents. To suggest as such is terminological inexactitude. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/108 "2009-09-21T22:10:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Now, presuming you’re trying to defend Dawkins statement that for King “religion was incidental” I’m not. I’m refuting your assertion that he didn’t get the idea for non-violent resitance from Gandhi. > [@](#): > > Further, Dawkins believes that both have them should have been ripped away from their parents in order to be saved from being raised in religious households. This is false. Dawkins says no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/109 "2009-09-21T22:13:30Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > He is citing with approval from another person who is saying just that: that religious parents should not be allowed by society to raise their children. The person he is quoting does not say that. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/110 "2009-09-21T22:13:57Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > I haven’t read _The Mind Made Flesh_ personally, however from reading a few available reviews, the solution proposed by Nicholas Humphrey appears to be “universal education in science”. Your premise that Humphrey is suggesting state separation of children from religious parents, appears to be undermined by what Humphrey actually says, and similarly what Dawkins has communicated in a speech on the matter. I added a link to the essay in question and extracted a quote from it. I do so again, as evidently you missed it the first time: > **[Edge: THE NEW HUMANISTS](https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html)** > [@](#): > > Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas—no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. > > In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. It is this essay, specifically, that Dawkins cites with unqualified approval (and indeed he notes it is available on the 'net and encorages people to read it). > [@](#): > > The petition that you talk of, initially supported by Dawkins, who later recanted on the idea, was concerning faith schools and the prohibition of the teaching of creationism. I would certainly be in support of such an action in the public sphere. Such schools should not get the financial backing of government, which is unfortunately currently provided in the UK. This is in no way malleable into the idea of removing children from religious parents. To suggest as such is terminological inexactitude. You appear to be missing my point in respect of the petition. I’m saying that his reasoning in respect of the petition - in which he _rejects_ his signing of it - in no way negates what he’s written elsewhere. I am _not_ suggesting that his approach to the petition “is malleable into the idea of removing children from religious parents”. The original issue (or challenge as it were) was whether Dawkins had _ever written in support_ of the idea that religious parents should be prevented from raising their kids themselves (or whether a poster had simply invented the notion, presumably to discredit Dawkins). It appears to me at least that Dawkins _has_ written approvingly of the idea - in that he specifically cites with approval an essay in which the idea is stated: that religious parents have “no right” to raise their children, and society has a _duty_ to 'protect" children from being “addled by nonsense” by their religious parents. Dawkins himself puts the matter as follows: > [@](#): > > Humphrey argues that, in the same way as Amnesty works tirelessly to free political prisoners the world over, we should work to free the children of the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them. He is right … ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/111 "2009-09-21T22:15:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The person he is quoting does not say that. Yes he does. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/112 "2009-09-21T22:15:46Z")
He’s only talking about public education. neither of them have ever promoted the state actually separating children from religious parents. That accusation is flatly false. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/113 "2009-09-21T22:20:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He’s only talking about public education. neither of them have ever promoted the state actually separating children from religious parents. That accusation is flatly false. You are simply factually wrong. From Humphrey: > [@](#): > > I am talking about moral and religious education. **And especially the education a child receives at home** , where parents are allowed—even expected—to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. [emphasis added] How is this “… only talking about public education”? It is true Humphrey does not discuss the state actually seperating children from parents. I never said he did. Merely that they not be allowed to raise their children. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/114 "2009-09-21T22:27:22Z")
He never says any such thing. He advocates not allowing parents to prevent their kids from being educated, but says nothing about not being allowed to raise them. All accusations to the contrary are false. Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/115 "2009-09-21T22:29:30Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is true Humphrey does not discuss the state actually seperating children from parents. I never said he did. Merely that they not be allowed to raise their children. That’s not so, as far as I parse it. It seems to me more like he’s saying that those parents don’t have the right to raise their children in a specific way, and with the exclusion of alternate sources of learning. I’d say that’s backed up by his “in short”; it’s not “Religious parents shouldn’t be allowed to raise children”, but “children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense”. His problems seem to be with the idea that children are raised in a religious atmosphere to the deliberate exclusion of all other ideas, that the particular viewpoints of those parents will form the entirety of the culture and path of their own life in turn. **DtC’s** point of only talking about public education, as I understand it, is not that that’s the only problems Humphrey has, but rather, that is the only solution that is offered to what problems he sees, as opposed to a reading that his solution is to physically remove the kids. That is to say, that he’s only talking about public education as a means to remit the problem, not forced seperation. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/116 "2009-09-21T22:31:37Z")
Humphrey is absolutely right, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/117 "2009-09-21T22:33:49Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is true Humphrey does not discuss the state actually seperating children from parents. I never said he did. Merely that they not be allowed to raise their children. Couldn’t they just, you know, raise their children _without_ wasting so much effort fostering a lasting belief in the supernatural? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/118 "2009-09-21T22:38:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He never says any such thing. He advocates not allowing parents to prevent their kids from being educated, but says nothing about not being allowed to raise them. All accusations to the contrary are false. Full stop. You are simply and provably wrong. You are wrong when you say he’s only talking about public education - he’s not. > [@](#): > > I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed—even expected—to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. You are wrong when you say he’s only talking about parents preventing their kids from being educated. He’s talking about preventing parents from exposing kids to _bad ideas_. > [@](#): > > Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas—no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. > > In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. You are wrong when you say he says nothing about preventing parents from raising kids as they see fit. That’s the whole thrust of the quote above. I’ve provided quotes proving all three points. I will stop now, as a debate in which one side simply refuses to acknowledge error when it has been pointed out is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/119 "2009-09-21T22:41:12Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is true Humphrey does not discuss the state actually seperating children from parents. I never said he did. Merely that **they not be allowed to raise their children**. [bolding mine] Can you provide a quote clearly stating as such, rather than one which you simply construe in such a fashion? Protecting a child from deceptive and scientifically unsupportable nonsense doesn’t mean that the child should not be raised by the parents, simply that a scientific education should be provided. > [@](#): > > Suppose indeed we want to take pre-emptive action with all children to protect them from being hurt by bad ideas and to give them the best possible start as thoughtful human beings. What should we be doing about it? What should be our birthday present to them from the grown-up world? > > My suggestion at the start of this talk was: science—universal scientific education. That’s to say, education in learning from observation, experiment, hypothesis testing, constructive doubt, critical thinking—and the truths that flow from it. [What Shall We Tell The Children](http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/120 "2009-09-21T22:44:01Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I will stop now, as a debate in which one side simply refuses to acknowledge error when it has been pointed out is pointless. That side would be you [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623.md?page=7)