Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is an email I sent a few moments ago to Richard Dawkins. Much of the sentiment in it is a result this post by my friend Nick Matzke at the Panda's Thumb and the more detailed and well considered response of Dr. Dawkins to his inquiries. I will post the full text of my email to Prof. Dawkins below the fold, which I hope will bring this whole thing to a close with some bit of grace and dignity.
Dr. Dawkins-
I have many things to say to you in light of the controversies of the last couple of days and I hope you will accept them in the true manner they are intended, which I assure you is with great respect and sincerity. First, I want to thank you for your gracious replies to my postings in reaction to the petition about which so much has now been said; I only wiish now that Prof. Myers and I had behaved as graciously. Second, and more importantly I think, I want to thank you for so quickly recognizing the error of having signed that petition and for not being the ogre I had made you out to be in regard to what you and I both now agree to be its coercive and appalling nature. I believe that your response to my good friend Nick Matzke, which was much more detailed than the brief responses left on my blog, brings the whole controversy to and end. And frankly, I am really quite relieved to find out that you reject the kind of intrusion into individual families that I reject.
I am very passionate about civil liberties, as anyone who has read my writings over the years can tell you. I am a Jeffersonian to the core, meaning that I reject wholesale the notion that any government has the authority to police our thoughts or interfere in our lives without an absolutely clear warrant to protect another person against direct, tangible injury or deprivation of their equal rights. I have long been concerned with your statements about parental religious teaching (not teaching about religion in a comparative sense, but teaching their children that their religion is true or "indoctrinating" them) being tantamount to child abuse; child abuse is universally considered to be a moral evil and a justification for government intervention (as it should be, of course) and so calling it that, however justified you may think it is, will reasonably be viewed as a call for the government to intervene and decide what parents may and may not teach their children about their own religion.
The irony is that I only found out about the petition and your promotion of it in the process of defending you against the charge that you favored such coercive policies. An ID advocate accused you of that in a reply to me on another subject and I came to your defense, saying that despite your statements about parental religious instruction being child abuse, I had seen nothing at all to indicate that you would support coercive policies to end such a practice. My correspondent then provided a link to that petition whose text, I am glad you now recognize, goes far beyond regulating what government can and can't do and implicates what parents and churches can and can't teach to children as well. I really was taken aback by that, but in light of your prior statements regarding child abuse, which I already feared would be seen as a call for such laws, the only conclusion I could reach at that point was that you must, in fact, favor such government intervention.
As you recognized clearly in reply to Nick Matzke, such a law would be, to use the same words we both used, coercive, horrifying and appalling. Once I made that conclusion that you favored such a law, everything that followed was, again, quite reasonable; I truly do regard any advocacy of such a policy to be the equivalent of what the theocrats would do in requiring religious instruction if they had the power to do so. If I saw a petition claiming that not teaching one's child Christianity was a form of child abuse and calling for the government to make it illegal not to do so, I would have an even more animated reaction, believe me. I sincerely believe such a policy to be a repressive, totalitarian measure and, despite my own personal lack of religious belief, I would fight against such a law as strongly, perhaps more so, as I fight today against creationism in all of its forms and against the oppression of gays and lesbians.
I simply cannot abide the thought of giving such power to any government, and I am glad to see that you are in full agreement with me on both the principled and practical objections to doing so. You say that you are "horrified by the thought" of having the government do so and I take you at your word. You also recognize the great practical danger in allowing the government to make such laws. As you would know probably more than most, atheists are an astonishingly unpopular group in much of the world, particularly here in the US. Numerous surveys have shown that atheists are the most maligned and distrusted group in the United States; give to government the power to decide what parents may and may not teach their children about religion and atheists will be the first ones in line for punishment. And though anti-atheist bias appears to be less of a problem in the UK, you do have a government that requires mandatory religious instruction in schools and has an official state church; I doubt the results there would be any better for atheists than they would be here. Like you, I am horrified by the thought of what would happen if any government has this particular authority.
Let me address, as well, a more general subject. You and I agree on a great many things and disagree on a few. We are both staunch defenders of evolution against the ignorant attacks of creationists of every stripe, but I genuinely do believe that your aggressive anti-theism makes it more difficult for those of us engaged in the daily fight to protect science education to make our case. I hope that you understand what I believe to be the single most important aspect of this dispute, which is that the vast, vast majority of those who reject evolution do so solely because they believe it disproves their religion. The average person knows as little about evolutionary biology as I know about Sumerian architecture, which is to say virtually nothing. The only thing they know, on an almost reactive level, is that evolution = no god = no morality. Now, I think it's important to attack this misconception at the levels you do as well, by pointing out that atheism does not lead to immorality, and I make that argument loudly and often. But I assure you that for those of us "on the ground" in the battle, so to speak, every anti-theistic statement you make is amplified by our opponents and used as a sort of prophylactic to guard against the infiltration of not only evolution but of virtually all scientific thought.
I am in full agreement with Dr. Tyson, in his admonition to you at the recent Beyond Belief conference, that if you would just be more circumspect in your hostility toward religion, at least in regards to those who are largely on our side in the evolution conflict, it would help a great deal. I hope you will accept that criticism from me as graciously as you accepted it from him at the time ( and I say that with full recognition that I could also learn a thing or two about being more reserved and less bombastic from time to time). I can tell you with no hesitation that it would make my work in this regard a good deal easier and would help avoid the kinds of emotional distractions that are fed and amplified by the anti-evolution movement.
But having said all of that, I want to clear up what I think is a popular misconception. I'm quite sure that Prof. Myers believes, and I think many of my readers do as well, that I have some sort of general antipathy to you and your work. Let me put that myth to rest. In most ways, I am a great admirer of yours. You are a man of clear and extraordinary talents and I consider you one of the finest writers I've ever read. Your ability to explain how evolutionary theory works to a lay audience is all but unrivaled in the world, and for that we should all be, and I very much am, extremely grateful. You are also, as a science popularizer, one of the few who can do what Carl Sagan did so effectively: capture and express the romance, for lack of a better word, of science. The Blind Watchmaker is as good a popular treatment of evolution as has ever been written and it has had a huge influence on me since the day it was published. I am, in nearly all ways, a great admirer of yours and, frankly, my admiration of you has actually grown through this last little tempest because of the gracious way you handled it; I can only say now that I wish I had been as gracious myself, as I hope Prof. Myers does as well.
If I was uncharitable in my interpretations of your position, I do apologize for that. I am extremely relieved to find out that my conclusions, though logical and reasonable given the situation, were wrong and I am happy to welcome you back to what I consider the pro-Enlightenment side (a side you never really left except in my own mind, if only briefly). I thank you again for your gracious responses to both me and Nick Matzke. If, in the future, I have similar concerns I will, with your permission, seek out your reaction before venting mine.
Sincerely,
Ed Brayton
Comments
Good job Ed.
I want to add a personal comment about Dr. Dawkins' anti-theist comments. I agree with almost every point he makes in this regard. I think many of the things he says need to be said. I only wish that he would find a more generous way to say them so that those who most need to hear his arguments and consider them would be more likely to listen. In short, I wish he would change his tone, so that his arguments would have more impact.
I understand the frustration he must feel. Believers don't play fair when discussing these issues. Their standards of evidence shift with dizzing rapidity. This can cause us to want to shout. But we would be better heard if we spoke softly.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 31, 2006 11:09 AM
As much as I admire Dawkins for other things (popularization of science, defense of evolution, advocacy of skepticism and rational thought), it is his frequent claim that religious indoctrination is akin to child abuse that bothers me the most about him. The main reason is that, as you hinted at in your letter, there is an apparent logical inconsistency in his position. Dawkins has at times claimed that the psychological effects of religious indoctrination are as bad or worse than the effects sexual abuse by Catholic priests. (Most famously, he did this in response to a question about child sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland, as he recounted in The God Delusion itself.) Yet, his answer to what he apparently views as an evil on par with child abuse is "consciousness-raising" and education in comparative religions. Given what an evil child sexual abuse is virtually universally agreed to be in Western societies, I keep asking myself the question: Why would Dawkins settle for such a tepid response to such an evil if he really, truly believes that religious indoctrination and labeling of children is often as harmful as child abuse? (And, no, I certainly do not believe in government coercion in such issues. I find the thought as repugnant as Ed does; I simply consider Dawkins' comparison to be overblown.)
Or am I missing something here?
Posted by: Orac | December 31, 2006 11:23 AM
Well, this is an example of the type of sloppy writing that inflames things.
All believers act this way? I simply don't buy it. In fact, it's inflammatory nonsense.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | December 31, 2006 11:27 AM
I'm so fracking sick of everyone bitching about the way Dawkins says what he has to say. If you can do it better, by all means write your own book.
Posted by: writerdddd | December 31, 2006 11:30 AM
Yes, it might have been better if Perry Willis had written "True Believers(TM) don't play fair"
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 31, 2006 11:31 AM
I think "playing fair" should be at the heart of the conversation we have with our believing friends. What would happen if Christians applied the same standards of logic and evidence to their own beliefs that they apply to the beliefs of others? I believe, and have experienced, that this can be a very productive line of conversation. It helps to keep things civil. Of course, it is still easy to astray, because the issues involved are highly emotional, but it can be done.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 31, 2006 11:45 AM
That was much delightful to read than "you said so and so", "I did not",...
Very gracious and well said.
Posted by: Don | December 31, 2006 11:58 AM
Thanks, Ed. I knew you would set this straight.
Posted by: Andrea | December 31, 2006 12:01 PM
"much more delightful", old age setting in!
Posted by: Don | December 31, 2006 12:06 PM
I agree with the others here, very well said and gracious. I keep reading this blog because Ed (like very few others) has been able to admit when he's wrong on an issue (not that he's wrong very often), which in my mind is the absolute cornerstone of true intellectual and moral integrity, and sadly it's all too rare in the blogosphere.
I'm also very impressed with Dr. Dawkins, and plan on ordering a copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" today as a result of all of this to-do.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 31, 2006 12:10 PM
You won't be disappointed by "The Blind Watchmaker", Jeff. I have a fat Dawkins' section on my shelves but where he has made atheism into a movement he really does seem to be, as he said in his response at The Panda's Thumb, out of his depth.
Dawkins is a genius at understanding complexity, and I don't doubt he'll learn something about communicating with the religious public from all this. I know I have.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | December 31, 2006 12:26 PM
Orac:
I think a distinction needs to be made between child abuse that the government should get involved in and child abuse that the government shouldn't. I believe that forced religious indoctrination of a child *is* child abuse, considering what I had to go through as a child and am still recovering from now as a member of a cult from birth. (if you want to hear about these experiences, I'm generally pretty open with them.) The question is whether it's the kind of abuse the government should get involved in, and I agree with Ed (and now Dawkins) that it is not. However, I do think it is the kind of child abuse that should cause the community to rise up and express broadly their disapproval. There is a lot of power in society, even if there is no governmental or institutional oppression.
We do the same thing as a society in other circumstances. Witness Michael Jackson dangling his child over a balcony. The argument could be (and probably was) made that the child was not in any real danger, as he had a good grasp on him, but still, that action is almost universally reviled and he knows it (and hasn't repeated it, going on to actions that *are* legally considered child abuse...).
The problem comes in the fact that religious indoctrination as a ritual is seen as "good" and not only socially acceptable, but desirable, by most of the population. It is completely appropriate to try to change hearts and minds - by manners that do not involve governmental coercion. I, for one, don't want to fall into the trap of thinking, "well, it's legal, so it's OK."
Just my two and a half cents.
Posted by: Russell Miller | December 31, 2006 12:27 PM
I can only say now that I wish I had been as gracious myself, as I hope Prof. Myers does as well.
Let me say something uncharitable and rude and generally out of the rational and bury-the-hatchet tone of this post:
PZ probably already thinks he has. Or, at any rate, he's so convinced that he's absolutely right that he feels no need to excuse (or, perhaps, even recognize) his own obnoxious behavior. He will say merely that he has been blunt, not that he has been unfair or that he has behaved in an unjustified manner. Rarely have I met a person so utterly convinced in his position and so utterly arrogant as PZ... at least, one who wasn't a convinced fundamentalist preacher.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | December 31, 2006 12:28 PM
Russell -- I'm sure that religious indoctrination *can be* abusive.
Just as just about anything else can.
Heck, civil libertairans like Ed and like, as I'm coming ot understand, myself, would probably think that it's fine for a parent to raise a kid in pretty much any kind of household. However, a household that's just fine and reasonable for adults -- consider adults who are, say, very sexually open, and have many partners coming through, and live that way because they want to -- can, potentially, leave psychological scars on children.
You and PZ would outlaw religion because it leaves psychological scars on some kids. The religious right would outlaw any but their definition of appropriate sexual relationship because it leaves psychological scars on kids. All of these things are tantamount to outlawing kids' travel in cars because kids die in car accidents. These would be overbroad laws that don't address the real problem, but address some much larger thing of which the real problem is a subset. What's more, by asserting that religious "indoctrination" is child abuse, you are asserting (effectively) that driving kids around in cars is the same as getting them into accidents.
It can be, but it doesn't have to be.
I was "indoctrinated" as a child in a form of Christianity, but I have no psychological scars whatsoever from that. (I have psychological scars, assuredly, but not from that.) It helps that I was in a very theologically liberal deomination, that there was a Nobel Prize winner in Physics in my congregation, that nobody had any trouble with evolution, that for the last 30 years the organists (two of them) and music directors have been gay, that for the last decade the pastor has been a woman, etc. (Indeed, I got annoyed at the Church's politics because they would sometimes preach from the pulpit that socialism was the obvious consequence of the Christian message.)
Religions education is not necessarily scarring.
Indeed, a colleague of mine, who I'm pretty sure is an atheist (although he is historically Jewish), attends church with his wife and kids. He said that he and his wife decided that they wanted to get their kids some religious education-- so that they would have some foundation to fall back on when they went out into the world as impressionable young adults (college age). Their thinking was that without some grounding, they might be too much attracted to the wacky and dangerouns cult-like things out there that appeal to the natural human desire for what many call spirituality (although that is a loaded word). Too little religious education, perhaps for some, may be as dangeorus as the wrong kind. In any event, pretending it doesn't exist, and pretending that its power is all smoke and mirrors, is wishful thinking.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | December 31, 2006 12:38 PM
One thing I've never understood is the seeming feud between you and PZ. It seems that any time one of your names appears in the other's blog it's surrounded by insults, assumptions, and nastiness. What you said to Dawkins is largely true about PZ too, you just disagree about tactics. It seems to absurd that you're more charitable to some of the charlatans you regularly debunk than someone who's actually on your side.
I just wish that both of you would act with some civility when dealing with each other.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | December 31, 2006 12:41 PM
Orac writes:
There are many ways that people harm each other. A moderately skilled novelist, or anyone who pays much attention to family dynamics, can easily paint a picture of parental lies or internal feud that, in some cases, does as much psychological damage to the children involved as an overt case of sexual abuse. I have known people who, coming to their majority, disowned their parents for such psychological abuse. And their reason was good. Nor does this occur only to children. There are all sorts of ways that adults, unrelated, can wreak harm on other adults.
The state cannot make all social interactions fair, or even to prevent all that are harmful. In a liberal nation, we make crimes of only certain kinds of acts. We want to be able to well-define the act. If it is an act banned because of the harm it does to others, we want the act to be something that is always harmful, or to seek a narrower definition. The harm needs to be something objective. We also balance that harm against potential benefits. And even when harm is clear, we also look at the relationship between the people involved to make sure the law is not infringing too much on how people order their personal lives, and even that enforcing such law wouldn't be too intrusive on those who aren't violating it. As people pointed out in another thread, parents should be free to tell children what they truly believe, even if that belief is deluded and horrifying.
And therein lies the conundrum. I think Dawkins is correct that certain kinds of religious indoctrination can be every bit as harmful to children as sexual abuse. That doesn't mean I'm ready to pass a law against it. Not only is there the definitional problem of specifying what kinds of indoctrination are objectively harmful, but it's just not the kind of thing liberal law can regulate. Political freedom will always put some kinds of abusive relationships outside purview of the law, even abuse between parent and child. Unlike Orac, I see no tension in saying, "yes, this is abusive, and yes, it should remain legal." Speaking as a civil libertarian, I am quite comfortable with the notion that freedom allows many social interactions that are ugly and harmful. And even when the harm is done to children, I'm not always ready to see the law intervene.
Posted by: Russell | December 31, 2006 12:52 PM
"I am in full agreement with Dr. Tyson, in his admonition to you at the recent Beyond Belief conference, that if you would just be more circumspect in your hostility toward religion, at least in regards to those who are largely on our side in the evolution conflict, it would help a great deal."
Careful here. I realize that what Dr. Tyson prescribed was sensitivity, not silence, but there are those who would interpret your words as a way of saying that atheists would just be quiet.
I'm not entirely sure what can be done here. Dawkins clearly believes that the theory of evolution demolishes certain design arguments for God and that its success casts doubt on the viability of design arguments in general. He also clearly believes that without these arguments, the reasons for believing in God are, to put it kindly, very thin. Now while I think that Dawkins did a so-so job of explaining why those reasons were thin, I believe that he happens to have been right. I suspect that many creationists believe likewise, which is why they fight so hard against teaching evolution. I don't think that there is any way around the idea that evolution does undermine a good chunk of the case for God.
About the only thing that Dawkins might be able to do here is to approach theists with the attitude, "You're wrong, but you're not stupid, and I'm blunt with you because you're adult enough to handle it." However, that would still offend quite a few.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 31, 2006 1:10 PM
I don't think ya'll are quite being fair to Dawkins on his child abuse comment. While it troubles me too in the abstract, as far as I can the specific usage Dawkins was talking about was threatening children with hellfire. It's undeniable that this is, for many children, a terrifying and traumatic experience, and thus I'm not sure it's really so wild to call it abuse of some sort. While it's psychological, and we can of course debate whether or not any sort of psychological abuse can ever match physical and sexual abuse or justify any state action, and thus calling it as bad as the priests is highly highly suspect and perhaps even morally tone-deaf, saying that it's out of line to talk about as being abuse strikes me as a little overly conciliatory.
It's no small thing, to discover that what your parents mean by "love" is: believe the right things as we say, or else we and everyone else and all the supposed justice of the world will countenance your eternal horrible torture. Many many former theists and even some current theists (many of whom later rejected hell) describe their reaction to this doctrine as being extremely traumatic and harmful. Comparing it to sexual abuse may, again, be far too glib, but I don't think we can just toss out the debate over whether it is abuse just because we don't like the possible legal implications. Perhaps there is simply a level of psychological abuse we are prepared to allow parents to wield in the forcing of their beliefs on their children and that is simply the pragmatic needs of allowing parents the reasonable liberty they deserve to try pass on their cultures and beliefs and values.
Posted by: plunge | December 31, 2006 1:17 PM
[quote="Rob"]Or, at any rate, he's so convinced that he's absolutely right that he feels no need to excuse[/quote]
But wasn't he right in the end? He agreed with Ed that the more totalitarian reading of the petition was terrible and wrong (which is counter to what one person said in the above comments that PZ wants to use the government to outlaw religion. He doesn't. He just wants the freedom to tell those people that their beliefs are stupid and hopefully make his position the dominant one. No force needed or espoused.) PZ then went and did a very rational thing (something that sadly Ed didn't do) and asked Dawkins for clarification. He got this clarification and even got Dawkins to post on this blog to clarify things.
The remainder of PZ's involvement in this issue was to point out that Ed had not actually backed off his more extreme claims when accepting Dawkins explanation of his error. Only now in this letter does Ed do this. The entire time, that was PZ's point. That Ed didn't say "now that I know your position, I see that you shouldn't be dismissed from rational thought and that you aren't a totalitarian wanting the government to ban religion by force".
Maybe PZ was kinda dickish about it all, but I can't see where he was wrong.
Posted by: Kevin | December 31, 2006 1:23 PM
True enough, but that's not the analogy that Dawkins is using, at least not from my reading of him. He's saying that religious indoctrination can be as bad or worse than childhood sexual abuse, and the specific example he used was by priests. He has intentionally chosen the analogy of childhood sexual abuse, a crime that, few would argue, should not be prevented and punished by the state. I suspect that he does it for its shock value to some extent. However, even leaving the logical inconsistency in Dawkins' position aside, his choice of that particular example is so inflammatory that it completely overshadows all of the subtleties that you and Russell try to discuss that it almost certainly does more harm than good as far as promoting Dawkins' position that children should not be labeled as "Christian," "Jewish," or "Muslim," etc. before they are old enough to choose their religion for themselves.
Posted by: Orac | December 31, 2006 1:40 PM
On PT Dawkins weirdly asserts that his only intent is "consciousness raising." He again used all caps so that the little people would know he was serious. He is even horrified by the prospect making this parental right illegal and putting such power in the hands of the government. (At least Blair's government.) His intention has, in spite of the obnoxious things he has written, which so many people of lesser intellect have clearly misunderstood, only been to make the label "Christian Child" as socially unacceptable as the N-word.
Ed, I am saddened that you are buying this sack o' crap. I have to speculate that you are under intense pressure to ease up on your Dawkins criticism.
I'll remind you that on your blog he wrote:
On PT, he is only interested in consciousness raising. In his first retraction on your blog, he admitted that he signed the petition after only reading the portion quoted above. Now, if the PT comment is to be believed, he wants nothing concerning a religious education provided by parents to be illegal (oh heavens no!) But the motivation (by his own admission, in his own retraction) for signing the petition included the demand big brother get into the business of deciding what constitutes illegal religious indoctrination.
He's a snake-oil salesman. Dawkins and Dembski are two peas in a pod.
Posted by: David Heddle | December 31, 2006 1:45 PM
Heddle said:
...in public schools (by the American definition of "public"). As he has clearly pointed out at Panda's Thumb, which you clearly have read. And which is exactly what opponents of ID in America, including Ed, have been working for all along. Stop allowing your hatred of Dawkins to get in the way of understanding what he actually says.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 31, 2006 1:51 PM
The funny thing is, I have never experienced Dawkins in any other sense. His manner of expressing himself is so natural and genial that I always get the impression that many of his claims are being made with a gleam in his eye, so I let the more provacative statements go. For some reason when I say things like this I get accused of not having read Dawkins, so maybe that's just me.
That is not how I would describe the furor of the last several days, which would have done the Arrian controversy proud, particularly the comments sention over at Pharyngula. Well, minus the mobs of crazed homocidal monks.
Breathe deep, the year is ending, and let's put it all behind us. Ambrose Bierce told a story (I paraphrase) of a legislative debate where various and sundry insults were being tossed. One insult, surprised to meet an inkwell going the opposite direction, asked, "But surely your master has already insulted mine?, to which the inkwell replied, "Yes, but he wanted to be a little ahead."
A happy New Year to all.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 31, 2006 2:03 PM
The entire affair would not have occurred had you not initially reacted with such extreme rhetoric. Your letter is conspicuously missing a repudiation of the 1984/Rushdoony hysteria of your original post.
That's too bad.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 31, 2006 2:04 PM
I fail to see how Ed owes Rushdoony an apology.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 31, 2006 2:09 PM
Gretchen -- where does it specify "only in public schools" in the part of the petition quoted above--the only part that he claims a) to have read and b) motivated him to sign?
He's a liar and a fraud, but his followers will grant him a Grand Canyon sized benefit of the doubt. It's very convenient that, after following what appears to be a genetic algorithm, he has, after several generations, arrived at an acceptable minimum as presented in his latest incarnation on PT. What he wrote before? Eh... who cares? Only his enemies will be so mean as to point out his egregious inconsistencies.
Posted by: David Heddle | December 31, 2006 2:21 PM
David Heddle harumphs:
Well, that's often how written communication goes. Far from being convenient, it's the usual back and forth involving slips between what one intends, what one writes, and what others read from that, compounded as those go round and round. That's precisely why there is the rule about reading generously. Of course, if you prefer to think you know what goes on in Richard Dawkins's mind, by virtue of some special psychic power or new advance in remote neurological instrumentation, you're free to criticize him on that basis. Just don't complain when you get likewise treated.
Posted by: Russell | December 31, 2006 2:35 PM
Heddle says:
It doesn't, and I didn't claim it did. He claimed that that's what he understood it to mean, and was why he signed it. Ergo, as has been plainly explained, his motivation was not to "big brother get into the business of deciding what constitutes illegal religious indoctrination" anywhere except in schools.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 31, 2006 2:38 PM
David Heddle wrote:
Your speculation would be wrong. Not a single person has said a single word to me against what I wrote that you have not seen in the comments. And even if they had, do I really seem like the kind of guy who would bow to such pressure? I write many things that irritate people on my own side and it's never bothered me before. Frankly, I think all this talk about whether someone should refer to a child as a "Christian child" is pretty silly; I could scarcely care any less about it. But that has nothing to do with whether Dawkins genuinely does care about it, nor does it have to do with the question of whether the government ought to be so labeling kids in schools (and on that, I agree with him completely, they certainly should not). I also agree with commenter above who says that there is a tension between calling religious indoctrination "child abuse" but then not wanting to make it illegal. But the fact that there is such inconsistency is hardly unusual; it does not mean someone is lying about either.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 31, 2006 2:49 PM
Gerard Harbison wrote:
There are two parts to my original position:
A. Did Dawkins support a policy that government make it illegal for parents to "indoctrinate" (again, a word that simply means "teach them it's true") their children into their religion
B. Is such a policy repressive and totalitarian.
The answer to A thankfully turns out to be no, but given his equation of the same with child abuse and given his current agreement that the petition does prescribe such a policy, my conclusion was justified at the time (just like Genie Scott's conclusion that Sternberg was a YEC, though ultimately shown to be false, was a logical and justified conclusion from the available evidence). But that certainly does not make B false, it just means it no longer applies to Dawkins. The comparison with Rushdoony were over policy, not personality. I absolutely stand by that comparison - any policy which does what that petition prescribes IS as bad as what Rushdoony would put in place if he had the power; it is repressive and totalitarian, descriptions I absolutely do not back down from. Point B remains 100% true, it just doesn't apply to Dawkins because A turned out not to be true. If he doesn't support those policies, then obviously the conclusions about how heinous the policy is do not apply to him. The moment I accepted his retraction, it seemed obvious to me that the rest of it no longer applied to him, but the conclusions about how bad the policy is were, and are, 100% justified.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 31, 2006 2:58 PM
Rushdoony's dead. Rushdoony's lunatic ideas, alas, are alive and well, publicly disavowed but privately still powerful, among the Christian Right.
Still, the good news is that Dominionism/Reconstructionism must have been soundly and finally defeated, since we are spending our time going after Dawkins instead.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 31, 2006 3:04 PM
Me: "About the only thing that Dawkins might be able to do here is to approach theists with the attitude, 'You're wrong, but you're not stupid, and I'm blunt with you because you're adult enough to handle it.' However, that would still offend quite a few."
kehrsam: "The funny thing is, I have never experienced Dawkins in any other sense."
When I saw him on a YouTube of an Irish talk show, I thought he came off in the manner I described, and the first time I read through TGD, he seemed to come off in the same admirable sense. The carelessness that Chris Heard pointed out when looking at TGD more closely didn't fit with that, though. Nor did his stock reply, "How many learned books of fairyology and hobgoblinology have you read?" It's as if he didn't take theists seriously enough to research them seriously.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 31, 2006 3:05 PM
"indoctrinate" (again, a word that simply means "teach them it's true)
No, not really. My little widget dictionary says 'teach to accept a set of beliefs uncritically", which is about as succinct a description of modern usage as I have heard.
I spend a substantial amount of my time teaching. I assure you most of it is spent teaching people things that are true. Yet I've not ever heard my sublime reflections on thermodynamics described as 'indoctrination'. And while I agree 'child abuse' is a bit over the top on Dawkins' part, surely we agree that kids should not be taught to accept ideas of any stripe uncritically. Provisionally, sometimes; open-mindedly, certainly; with due weight given to the opinion of experts, absolutely; but uncritically? Never.
Several of us read the petition, looked at Dawkins' website, and manage to come up with an interpretation that was actually pretty darn close to Dawkins' later explanation. Why was that?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 31, 2006 3:27 PM
Dawkins' current interpretation of the petition is identical to mine, that it prescribes a legal change that is horrifying. He says that the author likely didn't intend it that way, but I have no way of knowing that. I only know what the text says and the text supports my reading, which Dawkins now agrees with. And remember, the issue is not whether parents SHOULD teach their children their religion "uncritically" (how many parents teach ANY subject using the socratic method?), but whether the government should make it illegal not to. I would much rather have parents teaching their kids, the way my father did, by exposing them to a wide range of beliefs; I just don't want the government do require that. I'm glad Dawkins agrees with me, but the petition does not support that agreement, as he has now realized.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 31, 2006 3:32 PM
That's because nobody has moral objections to the existence of thermodynamics.
So do you think something is only indoctrination if a person says "You should accept what I'm saying uncritically"? Or could it perhaps be the case that people's perceptions of uncritical vs. critical acceptance depend largely on whether they themselves accept the beliefs being taught?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 31, 2006 3:38 PM
Gretchen:
I always consider an appeal to faith, and the notion that believing is somehow a moral issue, as pretty big clues that what is being done is indoctrination, not more ordinary teaching of a subject. There is no hypocrisy so great as the religious believers who simultaneously pretend to rationality and call to faith.
Posted by: Russell | December 31, 2006 4:42 PM
Gretchen,
So do you think something is only indoctrination if a person says "You should accept what I'm saying uncritically"?
Since he didn't say anything like that, I doubt he thinks it. If a teacher tells his students something like "You should believe with all your heart and mind that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour of mankind," I'd say that qualifies as indoctrination. In fact, I'd say it's indoctrination even without the explicit "You should believe..." part, especially when it is drummed into the child's head through rote repetition, writing exercises, collective chanting of creeds, and the other techniques of indoctrination commonly used in churches and religious schools.
Or could it perhaps be the case that people's perceptions of uncritical vs. critical acceptance depend largely on whether they themselves accept the beliefs being taught?
Well, it could, yes, but I think people are more likely to have difficulty distinguishing critical from uncritical teaching of beliefs they hold themselves when those beliefs are matters of religious faith than when they are matters of reason or scientific evidence.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 4:43 PM
Jason writes:
An excellent description of how we teach children the alphabet.
Posted by: Russell | December 31, 2006 5:14 PM
Not to mention things that they may not properly understand but ought to know anyway, such as not to cross the street without looking, to stay away from the creek where there is poison ivy and possibly snakes, to avoid strange people who ask them to go with them, etc. I'm sure for many people, "If you don't say your prayers and believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell" belongs on that list just as much as the rest.
Jason says:
As can be seen with the ID folks, beliefs aren't necessarily held to fall neatly into only one of those categories. And even when they are, they might be viewed as falling other than where you would put them. For example, I've talked to plenty of people who view evolution as a matter of faith but Jesus's resurrection as plain empirical fact. Those people would object to what they perceive as "indoctrination" that species evolved from a common ancestor.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 31, 2006 5:23 PM
Russell,
An excellent description of how we teach children the alphabet.
Unlike religious indoctrination, teaching children language is not teaching them to uncritically accept claims of truth. If the teacher gets the alphabet wrong, the child is likely to find out rather quickly.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 5:28 PM
Gretchen,
Not to mention things that they may not properly understand but ought to know anyway, such as not to cross the street without looking, to stay away from the creek where there is poison ivy and possibly snakes, to avoid strange people who ask them to go with them, etc. I'm sure for many people, "If you don't say your prayers and believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell" belongs on that list just as much as the rest.
Nice try, but as I'm sure even you realize, every teaching on your list except the last is based on evidence and reason and enjoys near-universal assent. We may indoctrinate children with certain teachings for their own physical safety before they are old enough to understand the evidence that justifies those teachings, but that is obviously not the same thing as religious indoctrination.
As can be seen with the ID folks, beliefs aren't necessarily held to fall neatly into only one of those categories.
On the contrary, I think the beliefs of ID folks are pretty clearly in the religious faith category. If they weren't, ID would be a respectable scientific theory. It isn't. Of course, ID folks themselves claim that their beliefs are serious science, and some of them may even truly believe that, but the rest of us know they are fooling themselves.
For example, I've talked to plenty of people who view evolution as a matter of faith but Jesus's resurrection as plain empirical fact. Those people would object to what they perceive as "indoctrination" that species evolved from a common ancestor.
Well, they can object all they like, but they're wrong. Evolution is not a matter of faith and Jesus' resurrection is not plain empirical fact. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, anyway.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 5:56 PM
Re Gretchen
To quote the creationists literature, how do you know that Joshua of Nazareth was resurrected? You wern't there.
Posted by: SLC | December 31, 2006 6:12 PM
J.J.Ramsey,
Nor did his stock reply, "How many learned books of fairyology and hobgoblinology have you read?" It's as if he didn't take theists seriously enough to research them seriously.
Not this again. I do not need to keep up with the latest articles in the Journal of Astrological Methodology to be serious in my rejection of astrology as irrational nonsense. Likewise, Dawkins does not need to research the details of theological debates to be serious in his rejection of theism. The only question relevant to that position is, "Is belief in God justified?" Only a small part of the literature of theology relates to that question, and I see no indication that Dawkins is not sufficiently familiar with it to hold a serious opinion. The vast bulk of theological literature is concerned with other, arcane issues of sectarian theistic doctrine, and Dawkins is under no obligation to study it.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 6:21 PM
Jason, you insist on interpreting other people's beliefs in terms of your own categories, completely ignoring the fact that they do not necessarily do so. That's my whole point-- that "indoctrination" is such a fuzzy word because it is commonly used to refer to "the instillation of beliefs that I find morally reprehensible." Even highly educated and intelligent people use such rhetoric. You might think that indoctrinating children with the belief that they should not cross the road without looking is based on evidence and reason, and another parent might think that teaching their child to pray every night so as to avoid going to hell has the same foundation. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying that your sense of "dangerous indoctrination" is by no means universal.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 31, 2006 6:23 PM
Gretchen, I don't think indoctrination is fuzzy at all - I know when I use it, Dawkins et al. uses it in regards to religion, it's 2. here in this unabridged definition. Teaching evolution isn't indoctrination, because it's not partisan. The facts and evidence revealed themselves under observation, and they are still revealing themselves - the same can not be said of Jesus's resurrection. I think this distinction is plain to see. Ironic the quote used in definition 1.
Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
Pronunciation: ndäktrnt, usu -d.+V
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: probably from indoctrine + -ate, v. suffix
1 a : to give instructions especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH (the function of indoctrinating youth was given to and accepted by ... the family and the priesthood -- L.O.Garber & W.B.Castetter) (the recruits were indoctrinated for a month and then sent to specialist schools) b : to imbue or make markedly familiar (as with a skill) (indoctrinated themselves with the teamwork of attack -- Ira Wolfert)
2 : to cause to be impressed and usually ultimately imbued (as with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle)
(had to be indoctrinated with the will to win -- J.P.Baxter b.1893) (indoctrinating young people with alien ideologies> : cause to be drilled or otherwise trained (as in a sectarian doctrine) and usually persuaded (indoctrinate the immigrants in a new way of life)
- in·doc·tri·na·tor \-d.(r), -at-\ noun -s
Posted by: Observer | December 31, 2006 6:43 PM
Gretchen,
Jason, you insist on interpreting other people's beliefs in terms of your own categories, completely ignoring the fact that they do not necessarily do so.
Yes, I insist that science is science and religion is religion, even if some people falsely claim that their religion is in fact science. I don't know why you think I am wrong to do this. If I didn't, I guess I would have no basis for opposing the teaching of "scientific creationism" in public school science classes.
That's my whole point-- that "indoctrination" is such a fuzzy word because it is commonly used to refer to "the instillation of beliefs that I find morally reprehensible."
Huh? So the word "indoctrination" is very "fuzzy" because in common use it has a certain fairly precise meaning (namely, "the instillation of beliefs that I find morally reprehensible)? I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or what relevance it has to anything I've said. I don't really agree with your claim about how the word is commonly used, either, but that's another issue.
You might think that indoctrinating children with the belief that they should not cross the road without looking is based on evidence and reason, and another parent might think that teaching their child to pray every night so as to avoid going to hell has the same foundation.
Yes, he may. Yes, some people may sincerely believe that their irrational beliefs are justified by reason and evidence. So what? I don't understand what you think this observation has to do with anything I have said.
I'm saying that your sense of "dangerous indoctrination" is by no means universal.
Again, so what? I never claimed it was universal. Most of the things I believe, and I'm sure most of things you believe too, are by no means universal. What's your point?
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 6:47 PM
Observer, one man's indoctrination in definition #2 is another's in definition #1.
I don't see anything in your definitions which says it has to be partisan in order to qualify.
Why, there's plenty of facts and evidence to support Jesus's resurrection! Have you not read the Bible, man?
I certainly hope you're not going to say that the truth or falsity of a thing ought to determine whether teaching it constitutes indoctrination.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 31, 2006 6:55 PM
Jason, I'm pretty well convinced by now that you're not going to get my point, no matter how clearly I attempt to explain it.
Posted by: Gretchenq | December 31, 2006 6:56 PM
Thank you, Observer. I think the definition of "indoctrination" you just quoted above is much more useful and much closer to how the word is generally understood than either Gretchen's definition or the one provided earlier by Gerard Harbison.
If someone wants to say that we "indoctrinate" young children with the alphabet or with common-sense rules intended to protect their safety, I won't object strongly, but I don't think it's really a proper use of the word.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 6:58 PM
Gretchen,
Why, there's plenty of facts and evidence to support Jesus's resurrection! Have you not read the Bible, man?
You're playing Devil's Advocate here, right? I assume you don't really believe that there's plenty of facts and evidence to support Jesus' resurrection. So again, it's hard to know what your point is. If you agree that Jesus' resurrection is an example of a sectarian religious belief rather than a reason-and-evidence-based belief, like belief in evolution, then I don't understand why you object to the distinction Observer just described.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 7:08 PM
It's understanding context and how language has subtle differentiations in definition within context. (I really don't mean to be pedantic, but I don't think I've ever misunderstood when the partisan or sectarian aspect of the word is used.)
It's right up there.
You're joking right? When I first read that sentence I almost spit out my coffee. So, if I write a story about the green alien in my bedroom that will be facts and evidence. ;-)
No, the partisan and sectarian part in the context I use it regarding religion constitutes indoctrination. Teaching evolution is not partisan or sectarian.
Posted by: Observer | December 31, 2006 7:16 PM
Jason: Gretchen is a good atheist, so you have no worries there. At the same time, she is making a valid point. Generally, the only difference between indoctrination and teaching is that the indoctrination is in something we don't like. It is rather like my Torts prof said back in the day, "What is Gross Negligence? Nothing more than ordinary Negligence with an insult attached."
Now it is often argued that only those issues with a very high degree of probability should be taught, and that all else is indoctrination. This is rather like Observer's definition, so we'll accept that. What then of all the fields of knowledge this does not cover?
Gretchen and I had this discussion last weekend, in the context of whether public universities should teach courses in religion. You'll be happy to know that she took your side, something about my "poor epistemology." Be that as it may, science only covers a small fraction of the human experience. There is real knowledge in history, and art, and literature. The fact that this knowledge cannot be readily quantified is irrelevant.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 31, 2006 7:23 PM
I'm glad you mentioned Carl Sagan. I think The Demon-Haunted World shows exactly how you can show the awe-inspiring nature of science, and attack the worst of religion, while still being respectful to the best of religion in a way that doesn't compromise your own beliefs (or lack thereof).
I'm always in a quandry when I read Dr. Dawkins' anti-theism. On one hand, I know it's counter-productive to the cause of defending science education. On the other hand, I firmly believe that just because a scientist (or science populariser) is atheist, they should not talk about that fact.
Perhaps the correct solution is that different people need to attack different sides of the argument. As you say, some people think that evolution = no god = no morality. Dr. Dawkins has done a good job attacking the second non-equality, but the first non-equality can only really be done by religious people who agree that evolution is a fact of nature. Coming from anyone else, it would be seen as an attack.
Posted by: Pseudonym | December 31, 2006 7:37 PM
Observer -
Gretchen said -
Why, there's plenty of facts and evidence to support Jesus's resurrection! Have you not read the Bible, man?
The point she is making (having read everything she has said) is that we need to keep in mind the notions we are up against. To raise the consciousness of society to actually make substantive changes, we must understand the make up of the attitudes we are trying to change. I am not talking about learning specific dogma, I am talking about realizing that these people raise their kids the way they do, because they believe their child will burn in eternal torment if they don't. Simply calling them irrational morons, is not going to change anything, it will simply steele them to foster stronger faith in their kids - making it harder to foster real change in society.
I geuss it comes down to goals. My goal is to foster a society that does not teach it's children these horrible notions. I would also like to see everyone, regardless of belief or disbelief, feel equal, free and safe from persecution. Using religous fundimentalist tactics is not the way to achieve that. That only works if the goal is to turn a few folks around, but alienate and anger everyone else.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 31, 2006 7:41 PM
Jason, you make sound points, but I beleive that Gretchen is making a point about realpolitik, not the logical basis for deciding what indoctrination is (feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong Gretchen).
I think you are right Jason about your definitions of indoctrination, for all i know Gretchen may agree as well. But remeber we are talking about a proposed law and that means you need to think politics not science. In science reality gets the only vote (and a good thing too), but in politics reality doesn't get a vote at all.
In practice, were a ban on religious indoctrination to be imposed the political majority at the time would get to decide what counts as religious indoctrination and I'm betting that they won't agree with you, no matter how right you are.
Posted by: James | December 31, 2006 7:47 PM
Ahh kersham spot on in my view.
As to education vs. indoctriantion I suppose in a general sense the words are similiar but the actions different. One doesn't indoctrinate a child into most things simply because there is no organized, continous reinforcement designed to ensure the child learns one way and one way only. The Chrurch of Christ doesn't usually say positive things about catholic dogma and vice versa. These 'views' are reenforced through the social network weekly.
Thats alot different than sitting in a class for a section of a course.
Posted by: GH | December 31, 2006 7:49 PM
kehrsham,
Generally, the only difference between indoctrination and teaching is that the indoctrination is in something we don't like.
Not according to the definition provided by Observer, or to the way he and I understand the word as generally used. It carries the connotation that what is being taught is a partisan or sectarian point of view, like a religious doctrine or a partisan political ideology, but not necessarily one that the speaker doesn't like.
Be that as it may, science only covers a small fraction of the human experience. There is real knowledge in history, and art, and literature. The fact that this knowledge cannot be readily quantified is irrelevant.
I strongly disagree, but I suspect you and I have very different ideas about what qualifies as "knowledge." I define it, more or less, as the standard philosophical formulation of justified true belief. The only source of knowledge is science and reason. History and art and the study of literature can produce knowledge only to the extent that they involve science and reason. Otherwise, although they may record or communicate knowledge, they don't create it. I think the common refrain that things like religion and art and mysticism are "other ways of knowing" is nonsense.
I think this is pretty much the view of Dawkins also.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 8:01 PM
Pseudonym,
I'm always in a quandry when I read Dr. Dawkins' anti-theism. On one hand, I know it's counter-productive to the cause of defending science education.
Well, of course, you don't know that. You may believe it, but that's not the same thing. Dawkins' position, with which I totally agree, is that the creationism-evolution thing is ultimately just a skirmish or battle, and that the larger war is between naturalism and supernaturalism, between reason and faith, between scientific thinking and magical thinking. As long as religion continues to occupy a privileged place in the marketplace of ideas in our culture, as long as we continue to discourage the rational scrutiny of its claims of truth, we'll always be fighting these battles.
Posted by: Jason | December 31, 2006 8:12 PM
I'll be interested to see whether there is any public response from Dawkins.
Ed, I understand where you're coming from, and though I think you goofed more than you think you goofed, I also commend you for the concessions you do now make about your handling of the issue, and for your detailed explanation of how you look at these things. Well done, in that sense, and I hope this will be the end of it.
Although I admire Dawkins more than almost any other current writer, I do think he sometimes overreaches in The God Delusion. Ironically, the references to child abuse are not so much what worry me - I have enough life experience of fundamentalist Christianity to think that his claims are actually about right. But there are certainly places where I wish he'd toned things down slightly. On the other hand, to change him in that way would mean turning him into a different person, and we need Richard Dawkins just as he is, even if it would be undesirable for everyone to be so outspoken. It takes all kinds to create an intellectual milieu.
On the "no God = no morality" thing, the religionists actually have a point, but not one that helps them in the long haul. The point is that much of their specific morality would be nonsense outside of their total worldview, even though some kind of morality (based on mutual-advantage thinking, human sympathies, and other naturalistic foundations) would certainly survive the death of religion. My own view is that we should, indeed, get rid of a lot of traditional morality - that it does more harm than good.
I don't see how people like me can avoid being in conflict with religious social conservatives without adopting a policy of massive self-censorship. I'm nowhere near as talented or forthright as Dawkins, but I agree with what I take to be his sense that we have no choice but to criticise the total worldviews of our intellectual opponents. Then again, I have an agenda that goes far beyond opposition to creationism and intelligent design.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | December 31, 2006 8:15 PM
The problem, Jason, (and this is probably closer to gretchen's complaint than my last post) is that indoctrination involves a "partisan or sectarian point of view." Then we discover that "the only source of knowledge is science and reason." Ergo, indoctrination involves the teaching of anything else.
Okay, we agree to disagree as to whether there is value and truth to anything which is not science or reason, even admitting that my definition of reason is probably broader than yours. But I protest the use of the term "indoctrination" (together with its negative connotations) if I choose to teach a child what I believe to be true.
If what I teach is clearly contrary to reason, that is one thing. I don't go around teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis, so that's not a concern. But if I draw a value of the historical veracity of the Gospel of John, the fact that you have a priori decided that it has a different value does not turn what I teach into indoctrination. It merely means we disagree.
There do exist different levels of truth. If you doubt me, wo