Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« The ID Board Game | Main | Predicting Furious Reaction in 3, 2. 1... »
Category:
Posted on: December 30, 2006 3:03 PM, by Ed Brayton
For those who are interested, Richard Dawkins has posted a retraction of his support for the petition I criticized so strongly yesterday. You can find his retraction in the comments on that post. Unfortunately, you can also find several examples of PZ Myers flat out lying about what I've said and done, which is hardly a surprise given his past behavior toward me.
Update: Please read this post, my letter to Richard Dawkins, which I hope brings this whole affair to an end.
Comments
I hope we can expect that Dawkins will be having this petition removed from his web site post haste, preferably to be accompanied by an explanation.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 3:22 PM
We've also been having some interesting discussion about this in the most recent couple of posts over at The Atheist Experience. I hope Dawkins is more circumspect in the future about lending his name and the considerable weight it carries to anything, before making sure he's fully read and understood what it is he's endorsing. I'm glad to see him willing to admit to his mistakes. Now if only creationists could pick up that habit.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | December 30, 2006 3:28 PM
With all due respect, you really should note in your previous post that Dawkins retracted his comments (and possibly link to your current post on Dawkins).
Also, I don't think it is fair to say that Myers is lying. It looks more like he is just too angry to think straight and thus keeps misreading what you are writing. The fact that he cites one of your posts as confirmation of he is saying about you would tend to confirm that he is just not thinking.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 30, 2006 3:54 PM
No, I'm thinking quite clearly. That cited comment should show you who is really upset to the point of irrationality here.
I am really baffled, though, by all the people who are saying that Brayton has backed off of his claims. He hasn't. He has announced that Dawkins has retracted his signature and admitted that it was a mistake to sign it. Brayton has nowhere admitted that he was wrong to claim that Dawkins wants to coerce religious people into abandoning their beliefs.
It's rather amazing to see him saying "Dawkins was wrong!" and everyone interpreting that as Brayton admitting error. So let's be clear about this: Ed Brayton has retracted none of his accusations of Dawkins' favoring a totalitarian atheist state, and has instead only reiterated that he was absolutely correct in his original post. He's welcome to change that and make a sincere admission that his interpretation was wrong, but I suspect it won't happen.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 4:04 PM
So you're apparently going to assume that Ed disbelieves Dawkins' retraction until he (Ed) says otherwise? That's very logical.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 4:09 PM
I have said that I accept Dawkins at his word that he does not favor such policies and that it was thus a mistake to sign a petition that called for such policies. Given that A) the petition does call for them and B) Dawkins did sign it, everything I wrote yesterday was entirely accurate prior to his repudiation of it. To any rational human being, that would be obvious. To PZ, who is crazed in his obsession to insult and demean me with his lies, reality takes a bizarre turn when entering his mind.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 4:10 PM
PZ Meyers -
He was not wrong. Even if you give Dawkins credit for retracting his signature, not having read the details of the petition, the petition on it's face calls for government coercion to restrict parents from identifying their children as members of a religious sect or indoctrinating them into said religion. I can appreciate that he claims not to support such coercion and hope he does. But in the face of signing a petition that clearly states legal coercion, I must assume that either he does favor such coercion, or he didn't read it before signing it at all.
All that aside, I do not take Ed's saying that Dawkins was wrong as an admission of his mistake. It is an admission of Dawkins' mistake, Ed did not in fact make a mistake in posting what he did.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 30, 2006 4:15 PM
No Gretchen, he's not just assuming that I disbelieve Dawkins' retraction, he's lying - again - when he says that I haven't accepted it. In rel="nofollow">this comment I explicitly say that I do accept Dawkins at his word that he does not support such repressive policies, and that I'm quite happy to hear that he does not. But surely he has no one to blame for believing that his prior endorsement of that petition meant he actually had read it and understood it and supported what it said. PZ just has this juicy bone in his mouth and he can't let it go; that is how rabid dogs, rather than rational people, behave.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 4:16 PM
One thing that seems to make this discussion difficult is defining what is intoctrination and what is merely teaching a religion. I would define it as follows:
Indoctrination in religion is telling children that a particular religion (or atheism) is true beyond any possible doubt, and that not believing in it (or even doubting) will have grave consequences (like burning in hell).
Teaching would be just telling about the belief, but admitting that it really might not be true at all. For a parent that may mean that [s]he believes it is true, but leave the decision open for the child.
I am an atheist. I tell my children that I do not think that there is a god and the reasons why I think so, but they can make up their own mind. I also tell them that lots of people do believe there is a god. My ten year old son says he is agnostic. I think every parent, religious or not, should do the same. Sadly though, fundamentalists believe that even doubting will bring you to hell, which makes this difficult.
Schools would have the possibility to teach about a lot of different religions and non-belief, and from a neutral perspective. I think they should do so.
Posted by: oku | December 30, 2006 4:17 PM
Ed Brayton: "everything I wrote yesterday was entirely accurate prior to his repudiation of it."
Yes, but it isn't quite accurate now, and appending to yesterday's post a notice of Dawkins' retraction would only be fair.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 30, 2006 4:17 PM
And you figure that comparing Dawkins to a consporatorial, terrorist, megalomaniacal theocrat is one of those things that reasonable people take in their stride?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 30, 2006 4:17 PM
Valhar-
If he actually did support that petition, then yes I think such a comparison is absolutely apt, though where you got the idea that Rushdoony is a terrorist, I have no idea; he's never blown up anything that I know of, or advocated such. What he advocates is repressive policies that would transform society into a totalitarian nightmare; that petition, if it means what it says, would do the same thing.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 4:22 PM
JJ-
for crying out loud, the previous post contains his own retraction, and my acceptance of that retraction, and I even put a brand new post at the top of my blog to point people to that retraction. What else must I do, take out a full page ad in Variety supporting him for Best Actor in a Supporting Role?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 4:23 PM
To play devils advocate on this one Ed, the charge you laid at Dawkins feet was a pretty strong one. The petition on his website did suggest that he held to fairly repressive views, but before making your mind up and comparing him to Rushdoony et al, maybe it might have been an idea to dig a little deeper? I generally get the impression you look into things before commenting, it might have been appropriate to do so here.
Posted by: SteveF | December 30, 2006 4:26 PM
Hmmm.
And I am the one "who is crazed in his obsession to insult and demean"?
You now have information that reveals the interpretations you made yesterday were incorrect. That you were ignorant yesterday does not excuse your reluctance to admit that you are wrong today. And in particular, the most damning accusations you made in that post were not directed at the petition, but at Dawkins himself. I can agree entirely that the petition was badly worded and impracticable and ugly if it were somehow implemented, but that was not what your post was about: it was about how you were convinced that Dawkins wished to establish a dystopian atheist state and was a mirror-image Christian Dominionist.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 4:26 PM
In the midst of 238 comments at last count.
Which is fine for people who read your entire blog, but if they're linked just to that post, and don't have the time to sift through hundreds of comments, then what?
Posted by: Skemono | December 30, 2006 4:27 PM
J. J. Ramsey:
This blog is open to comments. Dawkins himself appended his retraction to Brayton's post from yesterday. Brayton appended to that the fact that he had verified through backchannel that the retraction was from Dawkins, that Brayton believed it, and that that pretty much undid the basis for Ed's comments. This thread moves that correction to the top of Ed's blog. I'm not sure what more Ed is supposed to do here. How much more furor does this deserve?
Posted by: Russell | December 30, 2006 4:28 PM
How hard is this for you to understand?
Putting a post at the top of your blog that says, "Dawkins admits he was wrong!" is not the same as admitting that your accusations against Dawkins were wrong.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 30, 2006 4:31 PM
Ed -
I consider myself to be a rational human being, but I did not think it "obvious" or "entirely accurate" that it was appropriate--even yesterday before Dawkins' retracted his support for the petition--to remove Dawkins "from any discussion among reasonable people."
While I'm not sure whose "side" to come down on on this issue, I really think some of the hyerbole you used in your initial post was unnecessary and over the top.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | December 30, 2006 4:33 PM
Every single statement I made about Dawkins as a result of his signature on that petition was justified, by your own admission, by the fact that he signed that petition. Every conclusion drawn from it was perfectly logical. That he has now repudiated that signature is wonderful, but it does not mean that everything I said yesterday was unjustified; given the facts at the time, it was entirely justified. Again, for any sane, rational person that would be the end of it. Which explains quite well why you won't let it end now, PZ.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 4:36 PM
"Given that A) the petition does call for them and B) Dawkins did sign it, everything I wrote yesterday was entirely accurate prior to his repudiation of it. To any rational human being, that would be obvious."
Up to a point. Already yesterday you should have known that, despite his signature on the petition, Dawkins had been quite explicit in his stand on the matter, and that nothing in his writings or words suggested he approves of draconian laws banning all forms of religious education, as the petition seem to do, and you accused him of. So, the most sensible reaction would have been befuddlement, and a clear doubt as to whether Dawkins really signed the petition with full understanding of its implications. In other words, before of openly accusing him of being the atheist counterpart to Christian reconstructionists, it would have been wise and reasonable to apply caution and wonder aloud whether he may not have made a trivial (if stupid) mistake in signing the petition.
This is relevant because there is an important difference between claiming that Dawkins repudiated the petition after coming to the realization that the petition was wrong (or being shamed into it, as the fools at Telic Thoughts now claim, taking credit for it), vs his admitting he would have never signed the petition to start with, had he realized its implications, because they do not conform to his ideas.
Posted by: Andrea | December 30, 2006 4:36 PM
For pity's sake, PZ, Ed's accusations against Dawkins weren't wrong.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 4:37 PM
Ed, you made a perfectly logical inference on the basis of that petition. However, I do think it would have been more appropriate to do a little digging around before making such definitive accusations against Dawkins. I think this is where you may have gone a little wrong here.
Just my 2 cents....
Posted by: SteveF | December 30, 2006 4:38 PM
And I have now added an update to the previous post pointing out (how's that for alliteration?) that Dawkins has withdrawn his signature from that petition. Hopefully that will end at least some of the sniping going on.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 4:39 PM
I don't think it was at all uncharitable or illogical to believe that Dawkins would support such policies. As Gretchen points out in the other thread, this is a guy who has said many times that parents teaching their kids about eternal damnation is child abuse. And he approvingly quoted someone else in his book saying "we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe in the literal truth of the Bible than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out." (pg. 326 of the book) It's hardly a stretch to believe that he would support such policies given his past statements, and given the clearly repressive policies that such a petition would require be put in place. I am happy to hear that he does not support them, but that hardly means that I was "jumping to conclusions" in thinking that he did. His past statements certainly make it a very reasonable conclusion to draw.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 4:48 PM
This is the part of original post that Ed has yet to address:
If Dawkins signature wasn't on the petition but all other things being equal, would you have paid any attention to a DI schill saying this was proof that athiests want to create, for want of a better word, an atheocracy? And would you have been as quick to throw out the comparison to a reconstructionist vision?
You can argue all you want that the petition was the important thing, but it strikes me much the same as the special pleading YECs use when they say they only want to "teach the controversy."
Posted by: justawriter | December 30, 2006 4:56 PM
Brayton: "And I have now added an update to the previous post pointing out (how's that for alliteration?) that Dawkins has withdrawn his signature from that petition."
Thanks. :)
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 30, 2006 4:58 PM
Andrea writes to Ed Brayton:
This gets into the issue of how much one should know about an author before commenting on a work. I think it is pretty much ridiculous to say that one should know all of an author's "writings or words" before speaking up. Ed pretty clearly was commenting on the petition at hand. On the other hand, a petition is not the work of those who endorse it, it often is weasel-worded, and its endorsements may be less than whole-hearted. In some circles of discourse, Ed's last paragraph, where he "removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people," would seem rash and ahead of the game. Given the subsequent discussion, it seems pretty much par for the course here. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | December 30, 2006 5:07 PM
justawriter wrote:
If you'll go back and read the post, you'll see that in fact I had just gotten done defending Dawkins against that very charge. Despite the fact that he had previously said that he considered parents "indoctrinating" their children into their religion was child abuse, I didn't believe that he really would support a policy to make it illegal. Then I was pointed to the petition, which explicitly demands that the government do exactly that. So no, if his signature was not on that petition, I would not - indeed, did not - believe that he would actually advocate such a policy. But his signature was on that petition, and he was promoting the petition on his website, and the petition clearly does advocate just such a repressive law. Given all of that, is it really unreasonable to believe that he actually does support that? Of course not. You can try and put the blame on me for jumping to a false conclusion, but the facts simply do not support that charge. And yes, I would still say that if he did support such policies, it would remove him from all discussion involving reasonable people on the issue.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 5:08 PM
When did Dawkins become "atheists," now?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 5:12 PM
Never mind, I misread. Still, the petition is evidence at least that some atheists apparently want to fight against religion using the force of law, or else at least are as cavalier and careless about signing petitions as Dawkins was, and that's still unfortunate even without the signature of somebody widely viewed as atheism's spokesperson.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 5:15 PM
So Dawkins thinks it was a mistake to sign?
Or it wasn't his signature?
Either way, who cares? He was promoting it on his site.
The fact that he is trying to get out of it and avoid the backlash is irrelevant.
The cat is already out of the bag.
Posted by: A Reasonable Kansan | December 30, 2006 5:16 PM
Oh, Dawkins stopped being a person and started being a movement some time ago.
Posted by: Coin | December 30, 2006 5:21 PM
Man, Ed, you don't quit when you're slightly ahead (at least at face value). I have the book in front of me, and following Nicholas Humphrey's quote that you cite, Dawkins immediately says, "Of course, such a strong statement needs, and received, much qualification." (pg 326). He goes on to explain a case of ritual sacrifice, Amish people, and so on, but it appears to me that he is putting these ideas out there to emphasize the issue that children have no say in what religious manner they are raised; I don't see that he explicitly says anywhere that laws should be enforced prohibiting parents from free speech, but rather "really think about this." In theory, it appears he would not like children to be religiously indoctrinated, for sure, and they ought to be taught how to think, not what to think, until they are mature enough to sort it out for themselves. And perhaps it was that strong feeling that caused him to wig out regarding the actual wording of the poll without thinking how it would be perceived. (I wish no guns existed, but I'm not for taking them away from people.)
I hope this discussion moves on to something more fruitful. You threw out inflammatory remarks to PZ, which is nothing to be proud of either. Mea culpas should go all around, for one reason or another. :-)
Posted by: Observer | December 30, 2006 5:29 PM
I've been thrown out of forums for less than what's gone on here.
Right, Ed?... ;)
Posted by: island | December 30, 2006 5:39 PM
Observer says:
Indeed he does, but that's rather light distancing in my eyes. It's not a strong statement to be qualified, but rather an appalling statement to be renounced. Dawkins quotes Humphrey at length in his book, but doesn't seem willing to use language quite as harsh. One gets the feeling, however, that he is continually nodding in the background. It's actually kind of funny that Richard Dawkins, of all people, would be able to quote a public figure in this day and age willing to be more anti-religion than he is.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 5:58 PM
As Gretchen points out in the other thread, this is a guy who has said many times that parents teaching their kids about eternal damnation is child abuse. And he approvingly quoted someone else in his book saying "we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe in the literal truth of the Bible than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out." (pg. 326 of the book) It's hardly a stretch to believe that he would support such policies given his past statements, and given the clearly repressive policies that such a petition would require be put in place.
First of all, you may want to read the original sources rather than relying on third-removed quotes, because you are now really scaring me in the way you seem to be channeling Mike Gene.
Dawkins does not say that teaching kids about eternal damnation is child abuse, but that terrifying kids with views of hell and their own damnation if they fail to comply with certain strict religious standards can be psychologically damaging and, as such, child abuse. Whether you agree or not, that's neither extreme nor insane. Similarly, the "teeth" quote is from the following article by Nicholas Humphrey, which is worth reading in its entirety:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_4_65/ai_54098119
and was quoted by Dawkins in a very specific context and marking it is a controversial statement that must be carefully qualified, which it certainly is.
Regardless, neither position is akin to advocating anything like "coercion to try and stamp out religion", or that
"no one could take their children to church, which means you'd have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed.", which is what you accused Dawkins of arguing for based on his signature on a dumb petition.
Even less, they imply nothing like the need "to create a society that would make Orwell's 1984 seem optimistic by comparison", unless you think that the purpose of all laws is to completely and absolutely eliminate all minimally offending behaviors, disregarding all civil liberties in the process. Because in that case, you must also believe that the legal ban on furnishing alcohol to minors is sufficient to invite "jack-boothed thugs" to every family New Year's party tomorrow night to make sure no sip of bubbly passes children's lips.
Basically, you jumped the gun on that signature and overreacted to it, accusing Dawkins of ideas he never had, never argued for, and in some cases explicitly rejected. From some obsessed fundamentalist this is expected, because all they are looking for are chances to reinforce their stereotypes about atheists. But from a rationalist like you, I humbly suggest that a little more humility and caution would be in order.
Posted by: Andrea | December 30, 2006 5:58 PM
Andrea-
We're just gonna disagree on this one. I think the conclusions I drew were perfectly rational in light of the text of the petition and Dawkins' prior statements comparing parental religious teaching to child abuse. Now, if you want an irrational conclusion, you can look at PZ's email where he claims that because I don't want to accuse the park service of doing something there is, as yet, no evidence they've done that I am therefore "hesitant to call out creationists." That, in light of my nearly 2 decades of calling out creationists, is an irrational conclusion.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 6:09 PM
I read both blogs everyday at work, but if I have to pick sides here, I'm going with PZ. My problem with Ed and his position here is that he seems far to eager to jump to conclusions to seemingly try to show "which side" he is on.
The fact that Ed takes something from a DI hack at face value without finding out anything more shows this. Then, he goes on to quote someone else selectively quoting Dawkins book (which he still hasn't read)that makes his statements far more inflammatory then they actually were. Ed, for someone who has spent so much time fighting creationist stupidity (and I think your blog does a great job of this), this was the very "quote mining" tactic that they are so fond of which you have nailed them for countless times in the past.
I guess in the end it comes down to the deist/libertarian "above it all" act that you seem to slip into now and then. Always have to make sure everyone knows that you and only you are so much better then the rest (anyone remember the ridiculous "liberals are hypocrites because of Mark Foley" debacle a few months back? To my knowledge, he never went back and said, "know what? this whole thing was stupid. My bad")
Posted by: Kevin | December 30, 2006 6:46 PM
As Gretchen points out in the other thread, this is a guy who has said many times that parents teaching their kids about eternal damnation is child abuse.
Well, as Gretchen just acknowledged in that other thread, she herself believes that teaching children to believe that the Bible is literally true causes "harm" to those children, and since "harm" is a synonym of "abuse," it's hard to know exactly why she objects to Dawkins' statements. Apparently, Dawkins' awful offense here is to refer to the religious indoctrination of children as "child abuse" rather than "child harm." What a ridiculous criticism.
Posted by: Jason | December 30, 2006 6:47 PM
And as I made more than clear in the other thread, I was talking about abuse as a crime. For someone all upset about Ed not giving Dawkins a charitable reading, you sure don't seem to have any compunction about doing so yourself.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 6:50 PM
PZ & Ed,
I'm going to regret this, but reading through this sad exchange on both of your blogs this afternoon has irritated me to the point where I don't really care anymore if I piss both of you off. So...could you guys do everyone a favor and both keep your personal animosity towards each other to yourselves, rather than inflicting your extreme distaste for each other on your readers?
Please?
At this point you're both being childish and should both be embarrassed. I realize that probably neither of you will see it that way or ever admit to it, so much does your personal animosity color your interactions now, but that's the way it now appears to me.
Dawkins clearly fucked up. He signed a truly idiotic petition without reading the whole thing and then promoted said idiotic petition with a link near the top of the homepage on his website. There is no doubt about either of those facts. There is also no doubt that, when faced with what the rest of the petition said, Dawkins fairly promptly admitted that he had, in fact, fucked up and acted to repudiate his previous signature. That about sums up this whole incident.
Shouldn't that be the end of it?
[Dons asbestos suit to wait out the replies.]
Posted by: Orac | December 30, 2006 6:51 PM
Wait, don't you mean taking Richard Dawkins at face value? The petition was linked at the top of his website. It's still linked at the top of his website.
I mean, apparently people are supposed to be able to read Richard Dawkins' mind and know that just becuase he endorses something on his website doesn't mean he actually endorses it, but still.
Posted by: Coin | December 30, 2006 6:55 PM
Ed wrote:
Obviously you wouldn't have said it if you thought it was untrue or undeserved on Dawkins' part. You justifiably thought you were right. Nevertheless you were not and you said some pretty harsh things in the meantime.
Still, it is customary to apologize for saying unflattering things about a person when those unflattering things are later found out to be wrong (even though you didn't know that when you said them). Especially when the recipient of the unkind remarks makes an attempt to correct their mistake.
It might have been more diplomatic for you to explicitly retract those unkind remarks, even if you thought they were justified at the time. You could have said something like
"I was wrong and I apologize for the unkind remarks. I appreciate that you understand why and I hope we are both more careful in the future. Next time if I see something that troubles me maybe I will just ask you first. For your part, I think you understand your mistake and I hope you make all efforts to avoid repeating it or making similar mistakes"
Instead you said "I accept that you admit you were wrong". And while I personally think it's funny (Apology of The Week material), you could have been nicer about it. I mean, it's not as if you just said he was wrong. You called him an unreasonable, dystopian, totalitarian and didn't make any effort to retract it. (So far as I saw. Please correct if I'm wrong.)
/Miss Manners.
Posted by: Leni | December 30, 2006 7:03 PM
After some thought, I agree with Andrea. Making something illegal does not necessarily lead to a totalitarian society. That you were so quick to put that spin on the petition, and Dawkins' signature on that petition, forces me to seriously question your motives, Ed.
Posted by: gregonomic | December 30, 2006 7:15 PM
Gretchen,
What matters is not what you mean by the term but what Dawkins meant by it, since it's his statements you are attacking. You are no more justified in assuming that Dawkins seeks to criminalize the religious indoctrination of children because he calls it "child abuse" than anyone else would be in assuming you that you seek to criminalize it because you call it "child harm." In fact, from looking at the prevailing technical definitions of "child abuse," it appears that many forms of such abuse currently recognized would not qualify as crimes either.
Posted by: Jason | December 30, 2006 7:16 PM
When you ask me what my beliefs are about whether religious indoctrination is harmful or abusive, then it absolutely matters what I consider abuse.
"Abuse" is a legal language-laden term. Child abuse is illegal in most countries. "Child harm" is not. I really don't think it's at all bizarre to conclude that if someone claims a thing is child abuse, they believe it should be illegal (unless of course they clarify otherwise).
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 7:23 PM
gregonomic: "Making something illegal does not necessarily lead to a totalitarian society."
It does if it would take a totalitarian society to enforce it. As Brayton pointed out:
How would you stop parents from teaching their children about religion at home?
I don't see Dawkins as a man who would be willfully tyrannical. I do see him as someone who is careless enough to pave the road to you-know-where with his good intentions.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 30, 2006 7:25 PM
Orac wrote:
I agree completely with both of those things, and that should have been the end of it. The only thing that prevented that from being the end of it was PZ's decision to keep on attacking me and saying that my post saying that Dawkins fucked up was horrible and uncalled for. That is utter nonsense. There is only one person to blame for Dawkins's fuckup in signing that petition and that is Dawkins himself. Unfortunately, PZ can't accept that so he continues to attack me, both privately and publicly, for my completely justified statement against Dawkins for signing that petition. So please put the blame squarely where it belongs. There's no point in playing the "who started it" game, but he came to my blog and told flat out lies about what I'd said and attacked me for entirely justified criticism. There's a reason why I don't like the guy, and it's because of behavior like that. And if he chooses to engage in that kind of behavior toward me, I'm not going to sit by and be a passive victim of it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 7:25 PM
Gretchen,
Indeed he does, but that's rather light distancing in my eyes. It's not a strong statement to be qualified, but rather an appalling statement to be renounced.
You're going to have to explain why exactly you consider it "appalling," and why even a "much qualified" version of it would also be appalling, or necessarily objectionable at all, for this claim to make any sense.
Characteristically, you neglected to mention Dawkins' statement about qualification when you mentioned his quoting of Humphrey's statement in the other thread. Another attempt to misrepresent Dawkins by omitting important parts of what he actually said.
Posted by: Jason | December 30, 2006 7:27 PM
Orac, thank you for the reasoned intervention These exchanges and those in early December are discouraging. The personal temper of this discussion demeans the participants and does not at all reflect their usual intelligence and passion.
Is this what is meant when it is said that trying to move atheists in a common direction is like herding cats...cranky cats to boot it seems.
Posted by: chriss | December 30, 2006 7:36 PM
Gretchen,
When you ask me what my beliefs are about whether religious indoctrination is harmful or abusive, then it absolutely matters what I consider abuse.
I didn't. I pointed out the absurdity of you objecting so strongly--or at all--to Dawkins' statement referring to the religious indoctrination of children as "child abuse" when you yourself describe it as "child harm."
"Abuse" is a legal language-laden term. Child abuse is illegal in most countries. "Child harm" is not.
As I just explained to you, even many forms of treatment currently recognized as child abuse by child welfare authorities do not qualify as crimes. So for you to jump to the conclusion that Dawkins was implying that the religious indoctrination of children should be a crime because he considers it a form of child abuse is ridiculous. And causing "harm" to children most definitely has legal implications also. In fact, most of the technical definitions of child abuse I have seen explicitly describe it in terms of causing harm.
Posted by: Jason | December 30, 2006 7:38 PM
I love the smell of atheists bashing each other in the morning.
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein | December 30, 2006 7:44 PM
J. J. Ramsey:
This has already been dealt with on the first thread. We have a lot of laws that could potentially lead to totalitarianism - laws against domestic violence, laws against providing minors with alcohol - but which don't. Intervening in the few cases where indoctrination is obvious - where a child acts on that indoctrination - could provide a sufficient deterrent to reduce (but obviously not completely eliminate) the occurence of indoctrination.
Again, no-one is suggesting that parents be prevented from teaching their children about anything.
Posted by: gregonomic | December 30, 2006 7:48 PM
I'm sorry, but you were, indeed, being uncharitable. You were also quite dogmatic in your responses to the British posters who explained carefully how the petition might be read more narrowly in the British context.
As I said on the other thread, Dawkins made a mistake in signing something because he was in general agreement with the sentiment behind it - but without first thinking about it like a lawyer. It was obvious to me that something like that at least could have been going on (and I went to bed last night quite confused about what was really going on, and what must have been in his mind when he signed it). Why wasn't it obvious to you, even after people pointed out the different cultural context? Your initial post on the other thread was not that of someone trying to get a handle on what was going on, in a confusing situation, but was full of inflated rhetoric. You did not look good, and your continued stubborn refusal to admit this does not make you look any better.
Richard Dawkins has admitted his mistake, even though he has lost face over the issue to an extent. Why can't you admit yours?
Posted by: Russell Blackford | December 30, 2006 7:53 PM
Russell Blackford:
Ironic, isn't it, that although he was the one who sparked this whole fiasco, Dawkins may end up looking the best out of all the major players?
Posted by: gregonomic | December 30, 2006 7:57 PM
J.J. Ramsey,
That statement by Brayton doesn't make any sense either. Absent draconian intrusions by the state, all laws against the abuse of children are difficult to enforce, because unless the abuse leaves clearly visible signs it is often easy to hide. A law against the religious indoctrination of children might be even harder to enforce than laws against certain other kinds of abuse, but that obviously doesn't mean "it would take a totalitarian society to enforce it." The claim that "you'd have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in" is especially silly. We don't "literally police" bars and strip joints to "make no sure no children go in," but I doubt many people would claim that that deficiency renders laws prohibiting children from bars and strip joints unenforcable.
That's not to say that making religious indoctrination of children illegal in most or all contexts would be just or practical, just that it wouldn't have to be the totalitarian nightmare of government intrusion that some are claiming it would be.
Posted by: Jason | December 30, 2006 7:58 PM
The error by Dr. Dawkins was that he signed a petition that superficially represented something he favoured without carefully reading the fine print which advocated a policy he expressely (as in has repeatedly expressed in public) does not favour. Oops. His bad. He has since admitted the error.
The error made by Mr. Brayton was to make exceedingly invidious and unkind conclusions about the motivations, character and opinions of Dr. Dawkins based on a single data point - the signed petition. This in despite of other evidence directly contradicting these conclusions. Having seen the same cherry-picking, fallacious approach applied to other posts in the same thread I assume that this is representative.
No admission of error seems to be forthcoming. Merely bluster and imprecations.
To be clear: It was NOT an error to call the world's attention to the petition, decry it's contents and question Dr. Dawkins support of it. I think that was a public service worthy of broad commendation and thanks. Thank you.
It WAS an error (not just rude, intemperate and a bit foolish) to jump to conclusions about the man himself and his positions; particularly when so much countervaling evidence is already extant. This was severely compounded when those conclusions were not modified in the face of reason by other contributors and additional clarification from the man himself. Instead we get a post facto justification:
"I think the conclusions I drew were perfectly rational in light of the text of the petition and Dawkins' prior statements comparing parental religious teaching to child abuse."
No sir, those conclusions were not 'rational', as they were based on a single (and somewhat inconsistent - as had already pointed out) data point 'supported' (if one could so call it) by 'prior statements' cited uncritically out of context from an avowedly inimical source.
More to the point, those conclusions have since been demonstrated as incorrect. As they were also offensive on a personal level, it seems appropriate that they should be actively retracted (as opposed to reinforced and justified) and apologized for.
But hey, suit yourself!
Peace
Posted by: GMH | December 30, 2006 7:59 PM
It does if it would take a totalitarian society to enforce it. As Brayton pointed out
"Just imagine what you would have to do to actually enforce such a law. No one could take their children to church, which means you'd have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed."
How would you stop parents from teaching their children about religion at home?
Once again, not even in the wildest interpretation of his statements has Dawkins even suggested that teaching about religion is an issue. In fact, he has explicitly stated that there is value in religious education.
As for the enforcement part, I hardly see it as an issue. Restrictions against sex with underage persons do not entail the minute-by-minute monitoring of every kids' sexual life. Restrictions against the furnishing of alcohol to minors are not an invitation or a license to install cops at every New Year's party. Heck, even the clearly unconstitutional and purposefully oppressive Sodomy Laws did not result in the installment of penile monitors on every known homosexual.
You can take the paranoid, "1984", black helicopter take on all sorts of laws already currently in the book, if you so wish, but you do end up sounding like a conspiracy crackpot.
Posted by: Andrea | December 30, 2006 8:09 PM
Well Jason, I'll just comment that I think you're being silly. Firstly, I never claimed that Dawkins describes religious indoctrination as child abuse. If he did, however, I would react strongly to it because "child abuser" is a label we traditionally apply to people who deserve to have their children taken from them-- not simply people who take their child to McDonald's a little too often, or let them stay up too late watching TV.
Secondly, and following that, I hope you will agree with me that there are degrees of harm, and hopefully you will also remember the point I made much earlier, which is that it is possible for something to be harmful without being abusive. My position has been manifestly clear all along, and if you consider it hypocritical then it must be because you haven't bothered to read very closely.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 8:11 PM
The only thing that prevented that from being the end of it was PZ's decision to keep on attacking me and saying that my post saying that Dawkins fucked up was horrible and uncalled for.
No, the only thing keeping this from ending is everyone being obsessed with the who said to he said but then he said the who said to why said that what said was said and then said some more. If PZ wants to act like a baby, why do you care?
Posted by: Boo | December 30, 2006 8:20 PM
Adrea -
Then do you arrest the parents of a child who says they are a Christian? How do you know that they aren't just claiming to be that which their parents are? I claimed to be a republican when I was a child, not because my parents indoctrinated me, but because they were, for all intents and purposes. Hell, my son tells everyone he meets, that he is a construction worker. Do you arrest the parents of a child who prays, or otherwise mimics the rituals of their parents?
Posted by: DuWayne | December 30, 2006 8:20 PM
GMH, I'm with you. Very well put. I was going to start reading this blogg but I think I'll skip it.
Posted by: Yiela | December 30, 2006 8:27 PM
Andrea: "Once again, not even in the wildest interpretation of his statements has Dawkins even suggested that teaching about religion is an issue. In fact, he has explicitly stated that there is value in religious education."
You are equivocating. It's pretty clear that when Brayton was talking about parents from teaching their children about religion at home, he was describing what Dawkins would call indoctrination, not anything resembling lessons in comparative religion.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 30, 2006 8:41 PM
J. J. Ramsey,
I think it is you (and perhaps Ed) who is equivocating.
Posted by: gregonomic | December 30, 2006 9:01 PM
Ed, you jumped the shark today. You're comments about PZ make it pretty clear that you have some kind of bug wedged pretty far up your bum.
On the plus side, this means one less blog to read every morning, so maybe I'll get a little more work done. :-)
Posted by: Boosterz | December 30, 2006 9:14 PM
This just seems to be PZ being PZ to me. The original post involved Ed and Dawkins. So why didn't PZ just let Dawkins defend himself?
Like Orac (and many others), I'm getting really tired about these ongoing arguments. But it isn't just between PZ and Ed, it's between PZ and anyone who might suggest that a theist might be a great proponent of evolution. Anybody remember the brouhaha last February between him and Chris Mooney?
reference: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/02/defending_evolution_as_a_matte.php
The only difference between Mooney's and Brayton's points is that Ed didn't mind being rude about it. (In this respect, Ed can be much like PZ.)
But anyway, for both Ed and PZ, here's a quote from Mooney (from the link above):
So for the sake of defending evolution, can we get back to dissing Davescot and the DI??
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2006 9:14 PM
Gretchen,
Firstly, I never claimed that Dawkins describes religious indoctrination as child abuse.
So when Ed Brayton said...
"As Gretchen points out in the other thread, this is a guy who has said many times that parents teaching their kids about eternal damnation is child abuse"
...do you think he was lying, or just mistaken?
..."child abuser" is a label we traditionally apply to people who deserve to have their children taken from them
Once again, you provide no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. One might also say that we traditionally believe that parents who harm their children deserve to have their children taken away from them, and yet you yourself called the religious indoctrination of children harmful to children and damaging to society. Really, this idea you have that it's okay to call it "child harm" but not "child abuse," especially given that child abuse is defined in terms of causing harm, is just ridiculous.
Secondly, and following that, I hope you will agree with me that there are degrees of harm, and hopefully you will also remember the point I made much earlier, which is that it is possible for something to be harmful without being abusive.
Yes, of course there are degrees of harm. There are also degrees of abuse. In fact, the degree of abuse is basically defined by the degree of harm it involves. And I really don't know what it's supposed to mean for a parent to treat a child in a way that is "harmful without being abusive." How is the religious indoctrination of children "harmful" but not "abusive?"
Posted by: Jason | December 30, 2006 9:18 PM
Yiela, I wouldn't be so quick to condemn.
Things are not usually this snarky around here and Ed is great writer with a lot of worthwhile things to say. Like the rest of us, he is unfortunately prone to periodic fits of human-like behavior.
Doesn't mean he isn't worth reading.
Posted by: Leni | December 30, 2006 9:19 PM
Well, I read both blogs regularly and don't care for the flamefest. However, I do love a well-crafted term of abuse, and I must say that "double-barrelled, fully automatic asshole" is one of the best ones I've heard.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | December 30, 2006 9:27 PM
Orac, I think it's pretty clear that this pissing contest has gone far beyond reasoned speech. I expect any week to hear that a couple of friends and seconds escorted Brayton and Myers to some sandspit off Lake Superior some damp, gloaming dawn, where "honor is satisfied," and hopefully both return a bit more circumspect, if also bruised and sprained. I'm willing to serve as referee, if the parties will spring for my airfare. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | December 30, 2006 9:29 PM
DuWayne,
Then do you arrest the parents of a child who says they are a Christian?
Probably not, no.
How do you know that they aren't just claiming to be that which their parents are?
You don't. And your point is....?
Do you arrest the parents of a child who prays, or otherwise mimics the rituals of their parents?
Probably not, no.
Your questions are pretty bizarre. Your assumption seems to be that if the religious indoctrination of children were illegal then the discovery of a child who claimed to be a religious adherent or who displays any signs of religious belief or practise would be sufficient evidence for the summary arrest of his parents on a charge of unlawful religious indoctrination. Is that it? How does that follow?
Posted by: Jason | December 30, 2006 9:31 PM
Jason says:
He is slightly mistaken. I pointed out that Dawkins has said that parents teaching their kids that they will be eternally damned if they are bad is child abuse. He has not said so "many times" to my knowledge (though it's certainly possible) and it's not just "about" damnation. Additionally and more importantly, there is a difference between "indoctrination" generally and "telling children they will go to hell if they do X" specifically. The latter Dawkins identifies as abuse, the former he does not-- as I know from reading his book.
Do I really need to? Honestly, you're the only person I have ever met who does not hear "child abuse" and automatically connote "harm to the extent that justifies the law stepping in" or something of that nature. Abusive behavior is a serious subset of harmful behavior in my understanding, as I have tried to make painfully clear.
In the sense that religious indoctrination, like indoctrination in most other beliefs, is done because the parent believes it will genuinely benefit the child (that is, there is no malicious intent) and does not generally result in what could be described as severe and quantifiable emotional damage. Indeed, one man's "indoctrination" is another man's "education," so claiming that religious indoctrination is abusive is actually so vague as to be almost meaningless.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2006 9:34 PM
This is funnier than shit!
Atheists in action!
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein | December 30, 2006 9:45 PM
"Doesn't mean he [Ed Brayton] isn't worth reading. "
I concur.
I could accurately be described as 'pissed off', or even 'pissed off at Ed Brayton' right now. I disliked the aggression and obstinacy displayed in the original post and in the subsequent discussion. I also strongly oppose his seeming antipathy towards the ideas of Dr. Dawkins and others who question the special and protected status of religion.
Despite this, I have often found his blog posts to be interesting, informative and useful and I respect the passion he brings to the process.
Posted by: GMH | December 30, 2006 9:58 PM</