Razib's post about The Economist's review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and the resulting comments got me thinking heavily on Dawkin's description of the religious indocrination of children as form of child abuse.
In response to Razib's observations that "only in cases of clear and present abuse am I willing to allow the state to intervene. I don't consider religion abuse" I implied that almost all of us are willing to intervene, if the case is extreme enough. Cults, for example, often get even normally laissez faire types riled up and willing to separate child from parent. What it all boils down to is your definition of a cult.
Are Jehovah's Witnesses members of a cult? I know a few JWs and they don't seem too cultish in their behavior -- most of the time. But the state has shown a willingness to stop parents from imposing the JW notion of medicine (i.e., no blood transfusions) on minors, and courts have routinely issued injunctions requiring doctors to intervene to prevent the death of children requiring a transfusion.
Is the Church of Latter Day Saints a cult? Depends on whom you talk to. Scientology? What about those who engage in speaking in tongues and some of the other, more extreme examples of evangelical fundamentalism? In a similar vein, what do you when someone you know refuses to vaccinate their children?
My point is, we've all got a line that we'd rather parents not cross. We just don't all draw it in the same patch of sand. So Dawkins is at least partly right: some forms of religious indoctrination do seem to qualify, to a broad sector of the public, as child abuse. The debate is over just how intense does that indoctrination have to be before an intervention is justifed. For Dawkins, the answer is all children should be free to reach their own conclusions about existential matters, and any attempt to limit their intellectual investigation amounts to child abuse. There is no such thing, he says, as "Christian child," just children of Christian parents. And I tend to agree.
Razib, however, point out that, regardless of whether Dawkins is right or not, there really aren't too many realistic options for action. "One must intervene in pretty extreme ways," he writes, and I think he means any attempt to tell a parent how to raise a child, particularly on matters of religion, would be considered extreme by the parent. And it's hard to argue with that.
That leaves us with simply raising the issue, as politely as possible, in the public sphere, discussing it with friends and family, and, of course, blogging. But that will probably leave some of rationalists a little unsatisfied, myself included. There was a time, back in the hunter-gatherer day, when parents shared the task of raising a child with the entire community. Every adult was expected to play a role and their input would be welcomed. In those days, everyone pretty much shared the same values, most of which revolved around essential survival techniques. Today's "it takes a village" is a lot easier said than done, thanks to the heterogenous culture in which most of us live.
But wouldn't it be nice if we could all do what we can to hasten the arrival of a future in which most everyone shares a respect for reason and science, and dismisses superstition as childish indulgences? Seems to me that plugging away at the idea of letting children decide for themselves what to believe could be a case of putting the cart before the horse, and is less important that forging a revival of Enlightenment thinking in general. Then we won't have to worry so much about offending our neighbors by introducing their kids to the power of doubt.
- Log in to post comments
Well meaning parents teach children a lot of things based solely on their personal beliefs. Nobody is entitled to tell them that they shouldn't do it because they could be wrong. We could be wrong about a lot of things.
However, many good parents show their kids both sides of the story for many subjects. They allow their kids to make up their own minds even to their disappointment and accept their decisions. The big exception is religion. Since parents themselves are fully subscribed to the dogma, no christian parent is going to introduce the koran, buddhism or atheist literature to their children so that they can make up their own minds.
Btw, it is quite cute that the religious right can push for ID to be taught as an alternative 'theory' in science classes while we can't push for other world religions and atheism to be taught in churches, mosques, etc.
However, I don't think that this qualifies as child abuse. I think it's just bad parenting to raise one's kid so close minded on a particular subject.
Speaking of "the power of doubt", do you hold any doubts that the worldview of reductionist materialism is correct? Is there any skepticism present about the "brain = mind" hypothesis? And what prevents "rationalists" from becoming "rationalizers"?
It's not a question of "doubt" (or "belief"). Give me some
reason to think that spooky-ghost-spirit stuff exists and I/we will consider it.
csrster,
I have an entire blog dedicated to scientific evidence for such phenomena.
I also occasionally cover interesting anecdotal evidence for the same phenomena.
Of course, if you follow the methodology of James Hrynyshyn in his post "British Flakes" you will dismiss the scientific studies without even reading them, because they 'cannot possibly be valid'. It's called confirmation bias, and it causes people to see evidence that confirms their beliefs and to miss or dismiss evidence that contradicts them. I would call such knee-jerk dismissal a kind of religious indoctrination (into the dogma of reductionistic materialism) and the exact opposite of doubt. I like the quote listed to the left very much:
by doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth. - Peter Abelard
Apply doubt to the dogma of reductionistic materialism, investigate the scientific studies listed on my blog, watch the knee-jerk confirmation bias rising up inside of you and overcome it. You may find out the universe is quite different than you previously believed.
Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Dogma vs. science.
This is just like the Cardinal Bellarmine refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. . .
This entire topic of indoctrination and belief systems inspired me to just write a new post on AMNAP covering some research into the biological correlates of confirmation bias and the tendency to rationalize pre-existing beliefs rather than being rational in the face of new data that challenges them.
Matthew,
Your knee deep in the horseshit aren't you there fella. You honestly believe the tripe huh?
Uber,
Your post provides a great data point to add to the general trend that acceptance of psi phenomena is positively correlated with educational achievement and intelligence level. Down there in the lower left corner of the graph, somewhere!
Perhaps you misunderstand me or I you. Are you saying or trying to say that those who accept psi phenomena are more educated and intelligent than those who think it's bogus?
If so I would seriously question that data as from what I've seen of the world the inverse is true.
But delude yourself as you please.
I have been over at Matthew's blog and whats interesting is he doesn't see his own confirmation bias even against such obvious silliness as spoon bending.
Simply put he buys it, all of it. He has no evidence at all but he buys it.
Matthew do some experiments, produce some evidence, put the world on it's ear or just be like all the other nutters and put your fingers in your ears.
JmC,
The difference between you and me is you simply assume spoonbending is obvious silliness and then refuse to investigate further.
I also assumed the spoonbending was obvious silliness until I started seeing a number of very credible observers weigh in on the matter. Then I did some research and there is a lot of evidence that the phenomena could be genuine (although it is not high-quality scientific evidence from controlled experiments, as is the case for the telepathy research, Ganzfeld, and some other better-researched areas).
Your approach is dogmatic and mine is scientific.
This post shows a perfect illustration of the difference. And it is nothing new, in almost all debates between "skeptics" and psi researchers I have watched or read, the so-called skeptics have rarely read or studies the research they are criticizing. We saw the same thing in James Hrynyshyn's post attacking Rupert Sheldrake's research on telephone telepathy. It was clear he had not even read the paper he was criticizing.
Sorry, boys, that's not science. That's dogmatism.
I very much like Rupert Sheldrake's approach to skepticism:
I am skeptical of people who believe they know what is possible and what is not. This belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in. Genuine skepticism involves an attitude of open-minded enquiry into what we do not understand, and this is the approach I try to follow.
No Matthew you have it exactly backwards. You can keep saying over and over that it's dogmatism all you want the simple fact is you assume people have dismissed these things out of hand. Then when you discover that these events fail in any controlled scenario or are outright fraud you say the critics are dogmatic.
After looking into spoon bending it is quite clear to me that there is nothing special going on here but a simple trick virtually anyone can do. Likewise it is a simple thing to replicate in a controlled experiment and the fact it hasn't been done is quite telling. Especially considering the ramifications for even such a trivial thing in the scheme of what we know of the world.
It is not they who are being so. Prove your case or you have NOTHING but dogma and unfounded claims.
Most skeptics take the stance you quote below. Unfortunately there is little of substance once the ideas are pursued. That you find such evidence compelling is simply odd.
Reading Sheldrake's quotation that I just posted, I noticed the title bar of this blog. How ironic!
UBER: Perhaps you misunderstand me or I you. Are you saying or trying to say that those who accept psi phenomena are more educated and intelligent than those who think it's bogus?
I guess you missed reading one discussion of the correlation right here on Island of Doubt.
After looking into spoon bending it is quite clear to me that there is nothing special going on here but a simple trick virtually anyone can do. Likewise it is a simple thing to replicate in a controlled experiment and the fact it hasn't been done is quite telling.
Go read the article about spoonbending parties on my blog. This has nothing to do with magic tricks performed by Uri Geller or stage magicians. How are children bending the bowls of spoons like putty?
Especially considering the ramifications for even such a trivial thing in the scheme of what we know of the world.
What exactly do you think you "know about the world" that would be invalidated by the existence of PK?
Matthew,
With all do respect. The correlation your trying to maintain does nothing whatsoever to bolster the reality of any of the things you claim exist.
Now it may make you feel better to think that all these educated people are on your side but it does nothing to bolster your claims. One can be educated in a variety of things and not understand the scientific method or science in general. So essentially thay correlation is bogus for all points of this discussion.
Simply put, show real reproducible results/evidence or you simply have no case. I imagine you'll go to first hand accounts as some form of evidence that trumps all known natural laws accepting all manner of bizarre claims at face value.
But this is silly. It's the mindset that held humanity back for so long and frankly a return to it is out of the question.
Simply put, show real reproducible results/evidence or you simply have no case.
I've covered the evidence on my blog under the category "scientific studies" and provided the links multiple times.
So far there has been zero response to the studies other than your comment "this is bogus".
That is not a surprise given what we know about the incredible power of confirmation bias to prevent a fair evaluation of the data, but it is a disappointment given the title and purported raison de etre of this blog.
But this is silly. It's the mindset that held humanity back for so long and frankly a return to it is out of the question.
That's funny, I would state that rejecting experience and scientific evidence in favor of dogma is the mindset that has held humanity back. You can't get much better than this exchange for an example. Aren't you embarrassed that the representatives of "skeptical thought" in these sorts of debates are often such obviously sloppy thinkers?
Matthew, as you insist on hijacking this forum for your own stuff, I went to your blog to look for the spoon bending parties.
In short, I don't know what makes you call the links and videos "credible". Total strangers that are not affiliated with any reputable institutions writing random stuff up on their own websites is not credible. Those people are more than welcome to go to the universities in their town and astonish the physicists. Until that happens, I don't care. I also don't care whether all the physicists in the world are conspiring against the public by denying these claims any proving grounds. I just don't.
The only sloppy thinking in this thread is exhibited by you Matthew. Aren't YOU embarrassed to be linked with such twaddle.
No one is rejecting any scientific evidence. You simply haven't produced any that is reputable. So keep banging that dead strawman. The one clinging to dogma is you my friend.
You are one deluded dude. YOU are the perfect example of confirmation bias. It's almost, well not almost, is funny that you try and pin it on others. The 'results' you list are certainly not impressive, we simply can't spend every minute of every day trying to dissuade the deluded that their cat is trying to tell them something with it's mind.
Produce repeatable experimental results and people won't be skeptics anymore.
Just in case anyone was wondering: Yes I did read the Rupert Sheldrake paper. Once was enough, thank you very much.
My parents raised me in the Methodist church and I sure don't think I was abused. I read an interview with Dawkins in the latest issue of Salon, and although I am a vocal advocate for science education (and no longer a Methodist), I was still somewhat offended by his implication that my parents abused me and that everyone with a religious faith is stupid. That's sure not the way to get religious people to realize that yes, science and religion can happily co-exist. And yes, it would be nice if everyone could ban superstition from their daily lives, but face it... most places in the world are hard and cruel (just think of Rwanda or the Congo). Superstition and religion are all they have. The same applies to desperately poor people right here in the US. I don't blame the majority of humanity for placing their faith in superstition, in the belief of a better afterlife, in the hope of finding peace in this life... because this life isn't so great for most. Until poverty and war are distant memories, until every child receives a genuinely good education, don't think most people will abondon religion. They won't.
Atheist philosopher to debate morality
That's at Wake Forest.