You still contend Humphrey was only concerned with public education, even though he states in black and white the opposite?
Emphasis added.
Malthus’ attempt having failed, and ITR being unable to offer any support, is there anyone who can provide factual support for the claim that Dawkins believes children should be “ripped” from their parents in order to prevent a religious upbringing?
Can we agree that this is a falsehood?
What attempt? I never claimed that he said this.
So does anyone not named ITR want to explain Dawkins’ “sophomoric” philosophy? Where are the mistakes? I’ll grant a factual error or two, but where is the faulty philosophy?
I’m dismissing Judith’s objection over atheistic Judaism, because Dawkins explicitly states in the first chapter that things like Buddhism, “Einstein’s God” and Deism are not the subject of his book. I could easily construe that to cover any kind of “religious atheism” as well. He’s arguing against people who think fairy tales are real. In what way does he screw that up?
Not that the bar is set very high. If Dawkins is 100 times as good a philosopher as the best the opposition can come up with, aka Aquinas, then he’d still be an idiot.
**DtC’s **point, and mine, is not that Humphrey is only concerned with the potential problems he sees with public education of children - certainly he has many problems with how children might be raised, one of which is the education they might recieve at home. No, the point is that Humphrey is only concerned with public education *as the solution to *these problems; that he is not talking about (as **ITR **suggested) forcible seperation of children from parents as a possible solution, but only public education as a solution.
I think it’s really just a misunderstanding.
Yes. Public education as the solution. He is saying that parents should not be allowed to prevent their kids from being educated in science, just like they’re not allowed to prevent their kids from learning to read and write (something I’m sure neither ITR, nor Malthus has any problem with). Any other inferrence is tendentious nonsense.
As I’ve pointed out many times, that’s not all he says. If it were, his essay would be unobjectionable.
He himself states that he’s making a “negative” and a “positive” point. The necessity of science education (which I fully agree with, BTW) is his “positive” point.
What then is the “censorship” in the “education a child receives at home” he claims he’s arguing in favour of? Public science education isn’t “censorship” or “against freedom of expression”.
It is true he never explicitly spells out expressly what measures of “censorship” he would impose in preventing parents from educating their children at home with “harmful” morality. But he’s clearly in favour of the idea - he says as much.
No, his positive and negative points are both on the same issue, that of free speech (essentially). His positive point is that he feels that free speech in general is a good thing, of which science education is one example. His negative point is that he feels that in some cases, it isn’t a good thing, and his example of that is parents “enculturating” their children solely in their religion.
You’re correct in that it is not certainly “all” he says. But when it comes to solutions to the problems he sees, science education is “all” he offers, which is the point being made here. That is the sole solution, the sole answer, the sole conclusion, essentially, of his essay; it’s what he thinks should be done. As opposed to forcible seperation.
The accusations against Dawkins of being unschooled in theology and philosophy were answered pretty well by PZ Myers in his Courtier’s Reply, which starts:
And it goes on, but you get the point.
That’s basically how I see it. Dawkins’ primary point is scientific, not philosophical.
He’s not arguing in favour of it, as in, that it should be enacted or performed in some way. Rather, he thinks that as a philosophical, or moral, or theoretical issue, it is a bad thing. He’s not saying “Censorship of certain ideas taught to the exclusion of all others is sometimes a good thing, and I am in favour of measures enforcing this”. He’s saying “Censorship of certain ideas taught to the exclusion of all others is sometimes a good thing”. There’s a difference between saying “I am in favour/not in favour of this” and “I am in favour/not in favour of this, to the extent that I want measures taken to ensure it”. To use myself as an example; I myself wouldn’t be in favour of a single idea-based raising of a child (be that in a religious or atheistic path, in fact); I think it’s a bad thing. But that doesn’t mean I think there should be actual actions, actual measures taken to force the issue.
His "negative’ point is, I agree, that the freedom of expression of parents ought to be limited in the case of “enculturating” their own children. Moreover, that society has a positive duty to engage in this limitation.
He only discusses science education as one specific measure. However, it does not follow that this is the only possible implication of his thesis. If the thesis is that enculturation of children by their parents is a bad idea where parents hold certain views (in this case religious) and moreover that society has a positive duty to censor or prevent this in the child’s home education, how does it logically follow that the only implication is that society should provide public education?
It’s standard fare for critics of Dawkins and Harris to accuse them of being philosophically and theologically ignorant and of constructing simplistic caricatures of religion in order to make religion seem stupid.
And then they go on about how Dawkins and Harris are “hateful” and “bigoted” without any support whatsoever. They erect trivial defenses of religion (“people need religion to be happy”, “there is no morality without religion”, “there has always been religion”, etc). The double standard is awe-inspiring.
I think this is over-generous. He expressly claims he’s arguing in favour of censorship in the “sarcosanct” area of private family life. That simply has nothing to do with public science education.
Normally, if someone claims he’s in favour of censorship, I tend to believe he’s in favour of censorship. He no-where qualifies or limits his favour, or gives any hint whatsoever that he doesn’t really mean that taking actual measures to enforce it would be a good thing.
You’re correct that, logically speaking, that is not the only possible conclusion of that line of reasoning. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, it is not an implication, by which I would mean that it is not outright stated but a hinted, or suggested, conclusion. And I just don’t see it as a hinted or suggested conclusion; and he does state his conclusion in terms of it being the one solution that he feels is the correct one, the one he’s willing to support.
IOW, it does not follow from that line of argument that that is the only possible implication; however, that he does not imply anything else (as far as I can tell), and that he talks about the measure he does offer in considerable detail and praise, as well as offering his reasons why it is a good solution, suggests to me that if he did have other ideas he’d likely have suggested them, and more than that talked about why they were appropriate.
He’s not arguing in favor of censorship, he’s arguing against letting parents censor their children’s education.
Yes, it does. It’s the censorship of of the idea that one idea is the only one by providing alternatives. And he isn’t arguing in favour of censorship, he’s saying he thinks it would sometimes be a good idea; saying that something is morally or societally good doesn’t necessarily imply that it is still a moral or societal good when enforced.
But he does qualify and limit his failure, by providing the one solution he feels is appropriate. And saying that censorship can be a good thing sometimes doesn’t mean that *enforced *censorship can be a good thing sometimes. I don’t like being called names, and I would imagine you don’t like it either, but that doesn’t mean we’re in favour of measures enforcing a censorship of those names.
I’m challenging your (or rather their) critique, because you haven’t provided an example of a someone deconstructing Dawkins’ argument or excursion into philosophy logically. You have provided a number of statements indicating that some people dismiss his work (using unnecessarily flowery language for their own self-aggrandisement), but not a reason for their doing so.
That is false. Nowhere in your previous comment did you point out how these philosophers offered invalid objections to Dawkins. Rather, you scoffed at the use of the word “jejune,” as though this alone were sufficient to dismiss their claims.
As for their reasons for rejecting Dawkins, those are more than adequately documented in the links and sources that I provided. There is nothing “jejune” about the manner in which they dismiss Dawkins’ claims. Quite the contrary; both Ruse and Orr are highly sympathetic to Dawkins’ atheistic viewpoint, which is why they are so frustrated at the poor quality of his arguments. There is nothing jejune about that.
My point was that despite all the applause that this book is getting from laypeople, there has been no outpouring of support from the philosophical community – that is, the people who are in the best possible position to analyze his arguments. Even atheistic philosophers have been damning the book with their silence (Daniel Dennett being the only notable exception, as far as I can tell). I do not claim that this automatically makes Dawkins wrong; however, when even ardent atheist philosophers lament the poor quality of Dawkins’ defense, that should at least give everyone pause.