Theists, agnostics, beleivers: Have you attempted to read a book by Richard Dawkins?

[Malthus]

@Revenant_Threshold

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.

Yes, they have no right to 'enculturate" (Humphrey’s word) their children. In short, they have no right to raise their children in their culture - the culture of the parents.

He talks about public education it is true, but that is only half of his point. As he puts it:

And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I’d expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.

…

That’s the negative side of what I want to say. But there will be a positive side as well. If children have a right to be protected from false ideas, they have too a right to be succoured by the truth. And we as a society have a duty to provide it. Therefore we should feel as much obliged to pass on to our children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world—to teach, for example, the truths of evolution and cosmology, or the methods of rational analysis—as we already feel obliged to feed and shelter them.

In short, his lecture has two points, as he himself states:

1. a “negative side” - children are to be protected from their parent’s “enculturation” in “false ideas”.

2. A “positive side” - public education.

You guys are seemingly willfully ignoring #1 because it is unpalatable.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@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.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a rehashing of Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot. I’m guessing when it comes to “deep rooted logic”, Bertrand Russell’s going to come out ahead of most people, given he was one of the Twentieth century’s greatest philosophers and a giant in mathematical logic.

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That side would be you

Says you.

Fortunately, I have actual proof.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Let’s see it.

[Captain_Awesome]

@Malthus

Yes, they have no right to 'enculturate" (Humphrey’s word) their children. In short, they have no right to raise their children in their culture - the culture of the parents.

Or to put it in context;

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.

Why should parents be allowed to do so? I don’t see why children don’t deserve protection from such dogma and superstition in the form of a scientific education. Your falsely dissecting the argument to make it sound more unpalatable than it is.

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Let’s see it.

You already have.

[Captain_Awesome]

@Malthus

You already have.

So far I’ve seen Humphrey arguing that children deserve the right to self-determination and a scientific education. You have shown nothing to adequately support the sweeping claim that parents should not be allowed to raise their children.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Malthus

Yes, they have no right to 'enculturate" (Humphrey’s word) their children. In short, they have no right to raise their children in their culture - the culture of the parents.

There’s a difference between raising a child in your culture and ensuring a child has no other source for their culture than that which you provide, which is as far as I can tell what Humphrey is talking about here (and why his solution is to provide alternate sources). That parents have no right to fully control all sources of culture a child may be exposed to.

He talks about public education it is true, but that is only half of his point. As he puts it:

In short, his lecture has two points, as he himself states:

1. a “negative side” - children are to be protected from their parent’s “enculturation” in “false ideas”.

Hmm. Having read the essay a bit more fully, I think i’m forced to agree with you to some extent. Oddly enough, it’s the parts around the quotes you’ve been making that have convinced me, but oh well. He does seem to feel, as far as I can tell, that to some extent children should be protected not only in terms of recieving only a particular education, but an education on one subject at all, which is rather unpalatable indeed, as you put it.

Problematically, though, he still doesn’t say that his method of protection is to remove children from their parents; as far as I can tell, he seems to be saying that particular expressions are not good, but not where he would enforce the lack of those expressions through the means you’ve suggested. The plans he support do pretty much seem to only add up to protection via providing alternate sources of culture and ideas. Indeed, as he himself says;

Intervene how? Suppose we—I mean we as a society—do not like what is happening when the education of a child has been left to parents or priests. Suppose we fear for the child’s mind and want to take remedial action. 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.

It seems pretty clear that to him at least that’s the suitable answer, and the answer he’s been building up to, not forcible seperation.

[Malthus]

@Captain_Awesome

Or to put it in context;

Why should parents be allowed to do so? I don’t see why children don’t deserve protection from such dogma and superstition in the form of a scientific education. Your falsely dissecting the argument to make it sound more unpalatable than it is.

Your point seems to be that Humphrey is right.

That may be so (I don’t agree), but that isn’t strictly relevant: the issue is whether Humphrey is only talking (as Dio alleges) about parents preventing kids from geting a scientific education, or (conversely) about preventing parents from “enculturating” their own children - i.e., raising them.

My point is that Humphrey is talking about both: his “negative” and “positive” points.

[Malthus]

@Revenant_Threshold

There’s a difference between raising a child in your culture and ensuring a child has no other source for their culture than that which you provide, which is as far as I can tell what Humphrey is talking about here (and why his solution is to provide alternate sources). That parents have no right to fully control all sources of culture a child may be exposed to.

Hmm. Having read the essay a bit more fully, I think i’m forced to agree with you to some extent. Oddly enough, it’s the parts around the quotes you’ve been making that have convinced me, but oh well. He does seem to feel, as far as I can tell, that to some extent children should be protected not only in terms of recieving only a particular education, but an education on one subject at all, which is rather unpalatable indeed, as you put it.

I’m glad that someone at least has bothered to read the essay. Thank you.

Problematically, though, he still doesn’t say that his method of protection is to remove children from their parents; as far as I can tell, he seems to be saying that particular expressions are not good, but not where he would enforce the lack of those expressions through the means you’ve suggested. The plans he support do pretty much seem to only add up to protection via providing alternate sources of culture and ideas. Indeed, as he himself says; It seems pretty clear that to him at least that’s the suitable answer, and the answer he’s been building up to, not forcible seperation.

I never argued that Humphrey was arguing for 'forced seperation". I have no idea where that notion has entered the argument.

[Captain_Awesome]

Both points are made. But I fail to see how providing a scientific education as an antithesis for religious indoctrination is preventing parents from raising their children. If they wish to insert such ideas, I fail to see why it is unreasonable that the child should have such ideas challenged.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Malthus

I never argued that Humphrey was arguing for 'forced seperation". I have no idea where that notion has entered the argument.

I suppose the problem I have is basically with what you’ve summed up here;

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.

“Not being allowed to raise their children” says to me that they are, in some way, prevented from doing so. That it be made not a option avaliable to them. What ways of preventing children being raised by their parents do you believe Humphrey is talking about?

[Blut_Aus_Nord]

@Cisco

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.

I just got here and threw in my two cents. No one suggested I do anything.

But anyway, St. Thomas Aquinas covers some ground.

I’ll mention the simplest and most logic-based argument for God:

Disregarding Hume’s self-refuting nonsense that causality is an illusion, everything needs something to precede it in order to set it in motion. The universe is finite. This can be determined by ruling out both an infinite time line into the past and circular time, as infinite time leads to infinite regression, and circular time faces a similar problem; there is no origin from which to proceed. Also, something cannot spawn from nothing, as nothing by definition means just that. Infinite void. Therefore, the initial cause must have transcended our temporal universe. This can be referred to as Law, Will, God, whatever. Let’s say God.

“Oh, well what created God?”

What moved the unmoved mover? Interesting question. Seeing as God transcends our temporal universe as an infinite state of being, we can neither comprehend the fact nor ask that question. As ridiculous as that sounds, logic dictates that it’s a definite possibility, considering our finite existence. Dawkins suggests that there is a greater truth simply being filled by the concept of God until it is discovered. Ironic, as he is placing just as much faith on nothingness as some place faith on the concept of God. Maybe there is no greater truth, or maybe the very existence of a single atom suggests God. If you cannot find God in Creation or in the next person you meet, any further search is futile. You decide.

Also, here’s a simple rebuttal to God:

{God} = All = Something ∪ All = All

This creates an indistinguishable line between God and All. Simple mistake is that the equation should look like this:

{God} = Allo = Something ∪ Allo = All

God is the origin, and we are his external form, therefore our universe does not compromise his existence and vice versa.

Anything else? There’s not too much more super logic-based ideas unless you decipher Aquinas’ ramblings.

[Malthus]

@Captain_Awesome

Both points are made. But I fail to see how providing a scientific education as an antithesis for religious indoctrination is preventing parents from raising their children. If they wish to insert such ideas, I fail to see why it is unreasonable that the child should have such ideas challenged.

Providing a scientific education isn’t preventing parents from raising their children, I agree.

He states the two quite independantly: that religious parents have no right (and society a corresponding duty to prevent) “enculturation” of children (his “negative point”); and second, he makes an argument in favour of scientific education (his “positive point”).

The positive point is unobjectionable.

[Malthus]

@Revenant_Threshold

I suppose the problem I have is basically with what you’ve summed up here; “Not being allowed to raise their children” says to me that they are, in some way, prevented from doing so. That it be made not a option avaliable to them. What ways of preventing children being raised by their parents do you believe Humphrey is talking about?

He does not describe them. He merely notes that parents should be prevented from doing so, but does not propose any specific mechanism for enforcement. He merely notes that, counter-intuitively, there ought to be “word laws” protecting children from the harmful effects of the education children receive from their parents, by “censoring”. He does not, however, propose any specific method of censorship, or how such censorship will be achieved in reality.

[emarkp]

From “The God Delusion”, chapter 9

Our society, including the non-religious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them - ‘Catholic child’, ‘Protestant child’, ‘Jewish child’, ‘Muslim child’, etc. - although no other comparable labels: no conservative children, no liberal children, no Republican children, no Democrat children.

(Emphasis mine.)

It seems that he’s for the idea of actively preventing parents from raising their children in their own religion.

[SecondJudith]

@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?

Definitely not. She’s said she doesn’t believe anything like the character of Yahweh in the bible exists or ever has existed. God-idea is at best metaphorical and certainly not a “being”.

@Musicat

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?

Okay. The answer to your question is “no”. This is not intended as an insult, but this is the kind of unresearched ignorance (not stupidity, just ignorance) that I have a problem with in Dawkins’ arguments. The existence of god isn’t important to Jewish practice. I say practice, not belief, because like Malthus says, Judaism is a religion of actions. Every action may have a dozen “meanings”, and you can believe all (or none) of them at your choice, after thinking about and debating it.

If you remove belief in a supreme being from Judaism, you are left with, pretty much, Judaism. None of the texts or the actions requires a belief in god, and the rabbis in Talmud are definitely not debating what god-idea “wants”. They don’t really talk about god-idea much (there are some great comedy parts where the rabbis debate whether or not Yahweh goes to shul and wears tefillin, however).

For an example, here’s an excerpt of the Babylonian Talmud on festivals:

@Babylonian Talmud

MISHNA I.: There are four New Year days, viz.: The first of Nissan is New Year for Kings and for festivals; the first of Elul is New Year for the cattle-tithe, but according to R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, it is on the first of Tishri. The first of Tishri is New Year’s day, for ordinary years, and for sabbatic years and jubilees; and also for the planting of trees and for herbs. …

GEMARA: “For kings.” Why is it necessary to appoint such a day? (Let every king count the day of his ascension to the throne as the beginning of his year.) Said R. Hisda: “On account of documents.” So that in the case of mortgages, one may know which is the first and which is the second by means of the year of the king’s reign mentioned in the documents. The rabbis taught: A king who ascends the throne on the 29th of Adar must be considered to have reigned one year as soon as the first of Nissan comes, but if he ascends the throne on the first of Nissan he is not considered to have reigned one year until the first of Nissan of the following year. From this we infer, that only Nissan is the commencement of years for kings (or the civil New Year); that even a fraction of a year is considered a year; and that if a king ascends the throne on the first of Nissan, he is not considered to have reigned one year until the next first of Nissan, although he may have been elected in Adar.

This is not a debate about what god is or wants. This is a debate about when annual mortgages start to collect interest, and when elected leaders are inaugurated. The rabbis are debating politics, food, relationships and economy.

Again, I would love it if Dawkins addressed the fact that there are religions out there that don’t look and feel like evangelical Christianity, but his arguments in The God Delusion are tediously underinformed.

[Captain_Awesome]

@Malthus

Providing a scientific education isn’t preventing parents from raising their children, I agree.

He states the two quite independantly: that religious parents have no right (and society a corresponding duty to prevent) “enculturation” of children (his “negative point”); and second, he makes an argument in favour of scientific education (his “positive point”).

The positive point is unobjectionable.

At least at this point I see what point you are trying to make. I don’t agree that either facet of Humphrey’s idea can be described as preventing parents from raising their children, simply that society should provide a counterpoint to the unscientific indoctrination of the young. But I suppose at this point we will simply have to disagree.

As an aside, it seems to me like a perfectly reasonable position, insofar as providing an education should be the duty of the state, and that parents should not be unchallenged in contriving a child’s complete understanding of the world on something which has no scientific basis.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Malthus

He does not describe them. He merely notes that parents should be prevented from doing so, but does not propose any specific mechanism for enforcement. He merely notes that, counter-intuitively, there ought to be “word laws” protecting children from the harmful effects of the education children receive from their parents, by “censoring”. He does not, however, propose any specific method of censorship, or how such censorship will be achieved in reality.

The reason I assumed that you were saying he was in favour of forced seperation is that that is pretty much the only method I can think of that would prevent parents being able to raise their children.

As for your quote from Dawkins, emarkp, it would seem to suggest he’s against indoctrination by parents, which is rather a different thing than raising. Beyond that, he’s saying that it is not normal and right for parents to do so - but he doesn’t suggest that he is actively opposed. Just theoretically opposed; he thinks it’s a bad thing to do. *Actively *opposed would suggest not only that he thinks it is a bad idea, but that he is in favour of steps being taken against it, which your quote at least would not seem to support.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Blut_Aus_Nord

But anyway, St. Thomas Aquinas covers some ground.

Aquinas says nothing that holds up to critical examination.

I’ll mention the simplest and most logic-based argument for God:

Disregarding Hume’s self-refuting nonsense that causality is an illusion, everything needs something to precede it in order to set it in motion.

This is not true on a quantum level.

The universe is finite. This can be determined by ruling out both an infinite time line into the past and circular time, as infinite time leads to infinite regression, and circular time faces a similar problem; there is no origin from which to proceed. Also, something cannot spawn from nothing, as nothing by definition means just that. Infinite void. Therefore, the initial cause must have transcended our temporal universe. This can be referred to as Law, Will, God, whatever. Let’s say God.

This is a rank amateur cosmological argument.

Your premises are not supported (something arises from nothing all the time on a quantum level, and you don’t seem to be familiar with multiverse theories), and “God”, in this instance, is a meaningless word. What is your definition of “God?”

“Oh, well what created God?”

What moved the unmoved mover? Interesting question. Seeing as God transcends our temporal universe as an infinite state of being, we can neither comprehend the fact nor ask that question.

Sure we can. Asking that question requires no special comprehension.

As ridiculous as that sounds, logic dictates that it’s a definite possibility, considering our finite existence.

What exactly are you asserting is a “distinct possibility?”

Dawkins suggests that there is a greater truth simply being filled by the concept of God until it is discovered.

No he doesn’t.

Ironic, as he is placing just as much faith on nothingness as some place faith on the concept of God.

Dawkins does nothing of the sort. He just says that positing magic for an unanswered question is silly, and has no explanatory power.