On Religion and Education

Filed under: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Education, Lead Story, Religion, Richard Dawkins — Claudia, Assistant Editor on March 23, 2008 @ 9:39 pm CET

A look at the intentions of the so-called “new atheists”

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how threatened certain members of the religious community feel by any challenge whatsoever. Here they are (in the US, at least) in what is likely the most religious nation in the western world, where churches are everywhere, politicians both left and right make sure to seem as pious as possible, and where feelings of prejudice against non-believers are alive and well. Despite all this, the fact that certain intellectuals write books and give lectures that are anti-theistic drives them to write apocalyptic screeds about how “dangerous” these “new atheists” really are. They are accused of extremism, bigotry, totalitarian intentions and (perhaps most laughably) anti-intellectualism.

Amongst the many follies common in attacks made on such people as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Hirsi Ali (to name the most prominent and respected of the so-called “new atheists”) is the one whereby, using no evidence whatsoever, it is claimed that they seek to impose atheism in a totalitarian fashion. This would involve, depending on the paranoia of the writer, banning of religion, persecution of religious ceremony and/or religious institutions and/or people, indoctrination of atheism in school, elimination of religious texts, the whole Taliban nine-yards. This is nonsense in several fronts, but based on commenter C. Stanley’s statements on a previous thread on the subject, I wanted to address the education aspect specifically.

Here are things they all have in common:

NONE of them advocate banning religious practice; not now, not ever.
NONE of them advocate persecution of religious people or institutions, though all advocate a very strict Church-State separation.
NONE of them advocate imposing atheism in education on children.

The claims otherwise are nonsense, but it’s worth looking at each person and what they DO advocate no? Here’s a quick summary from my own understanding and reading of them:

Richard Dawkins: Probably the most prestigious and respected of them all in non-believer communities. He very vigorously opposes teaching religion to children, but also opposes teaching them atheism. His view is that children are children and should not be labelled with the religious beliefs of their parents, which of course means no “atheist children” either.

Christopher Hitchens: My least favourite of the bunch, he’s also the one I know the least about, since I find him very irritating. I have seen and read enough of him to know that he’s never advocated teaching children to be atheists. He does believe, for cultural and historic reasons, that adults should have knowledge of the Bible (Dawkins shares this view).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Though very much an atheist, she is much more anti-Islam than she is anti-religion generally. From what I gather from her writing and speaking, she (an apostate from Islam whose life is in danger every day because of it) would advocate pretty much anything that would prevent the spread of Islam, but she doesn’t feel similarly about Christianity or Judaism. In that sense, I think she might support preventing children from learning Islam as truth, but don’t really think she’d mind the other religions, though she herself believes none of it.

Sam Harris: Sam Harris is notable because he opposes the use of any terminology to define non-believers, be it atheists, freethinker, bright, any of them. He thinks that people who would be defined as atheists should merely fight (with words) statements unsupported by any rationality or evidence, whichever they are, on the basis of lack of reason, but not from the rallying point of “atheism”. He is probably the most wary of the group of the possibility of tribalism within atheism, and seeing him included in a list of “dangerous atheists” is ridiculous in the extreme. He is also one of the biggest advocates within the community of not dismissing the things religions give people, saying that you can oppose the irrational beliefs but you wish to take religious beliefs away you must be ready to meet those “spiritual” needs in another way. Real totalitarian huh?

Daniel Dennett: A philosopher and the one most centered around the education argument. To give you an idea of his position; Dennett advocates the teaching of FOUR Rs in school, the fourth being Religion. He thinks religion is so important that everyone must have at least a basic understanding of the main religions of the world. Of course, he advocates the teaching of comparative religion, that is, no one religion should be taught above any other. Children would learn, with increasing complexity through the years, the tenets, ceremonies, religious symbols and main festivities of different religions BUT none would be taught as if they were true or false.

Finally a comment on a comment. C. Stanley mentioned the possibility of allowing children to “decide for themselves” if they wished to be atheists or not, instead of teaching them to be it. I agree with the sentiment, as would the people I just mentioned. I wonder however, if the religious would be willing to do the same. Would a Catholic be willing to meet atheists half way and not teach Christianity to their children, allowing them to decide as fully rational adults what they want to believe? I’d love to think so, but somehow I suspect not.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

1 Cernig

March 23, 2008 @ 9:59 pm CET

Good post.

2 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 3:03 am CET

I’m short on time right now and will read this more carefully and try to comment more tomorrow, but just wanted to note one thing in particular:

Finally a comment on a comment. C. Stanley mentioned the possibility of allowing children to “decide for themselves” if they wished to be atheists or not, instead of teaching them to be it.

I’m not sure where that’s coming from, because I don’t remember saying that. Since that’s not an accurate reflection of my thoughts, the question you posed to me isn’t valid. I’ll try to comment more on my thoughts on that tomorrow too, but just wanted to note the discrepency.

I have to say that my initial reaction to the post is disappointment. You seem quite angry that anyone has taken some of these authors to task, and while you may be within bounds to say where you think they went too far with their concerns, you seem unwilling to even consider that there may be some validity to the complaints. Since Harris has authored a book called The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, and Hitchens wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, I don’t think it’s a stretch for people to think that they aren’t just expressing their views of religion being wrong or misguided, but that they actually wish to supress it.

Now no one is claiming that they want to do that through the means you mentioned- in fact I specifically wrote in my comment earlier that I wasn’t claiming that at all. So, apparently you miss my point, which is that you don’t have to ban books or practices in order to inject a biased view onto an audience, you just have to use a one sided approach which creates an evil strawman of religion so that the books which would cast a more favorable light become books that people assume are not worth their time.

I’m guessing too that your reaction to my point above where I list those book titles will be to say that people should read the books and understand the nuance before feeling that the approach is as antagonistic as we think it is. Well, the issue there is that similarly, I feel that many people on the agnostic/atheist side don’t read from the Bible, Koran, or works of great theologians and religious philosophers and instead rely on their impressions, much of which has been created by these authors who focus on every negative aspect of religion (with some of them paying a bit more lip service to allowing for people to fulfill their spiritual needs, as long as they eradicate what they call irrational belief. Do you not realize how condescending that is? It’s insulting at best that Sam Harris would allow for that-while presuming that those spiritual needs couldn’t possibly reflect a true human need instilled in us by our Creator.)

My basic premise, which you don’t address (you seem to be creating strawmen of your own, ridiculing things that no one has said in the article that was quoted or in the comments to it) isn’t that these writers advocate totalitarianism per se. They’re obviously more intelligent than that, and write for an intellectual audience. The trouble is that this doesn’t mean that they’re above using a propagandistic method, or that the readers are immune to the effects of propaganda. The main way in which I find them using propaganda is not in what they say, but in what they leave out. By focusing on negative aspects of religion, and not encouraging people to study the primary sources, they leave an impression which is completely one sided. That’s how it’s not unlike an indoctrinistic approach to teaching religion- which would focus only on the positive aspects, pretend the negative doesn’t exist, and not bother to encourage the student to explore other belief systems and expose his/her own to scrutiny.
It doesn’t have to be done by banning books or sources, just by treating them with such disdain that the student (who has also become convinced that the teacher’s opinions are valid and valuable) has no interest in looking at the primary source materials. He trusts that the teacher is intellectual enough to have examined critically and come to solid conclusions.

Now, it sounds like you do believe that to some degree, each of these authors does encourage that kind of study- but to me, saying "everyone should have some knowledge of the Bible" is quite different than saying, "Read the Bible with an open mind to see what you think of it, and more importantly, read what some of the great theologians have drawn from it to see if it has value." Instead, what they seem to do is say, "Everyone should have some knowledge of the Bible, and here’s what you should know about it." Or, vaguely directing people to pick up a copy and read it, but of course it isn’t that easy to grasp the meaning of it that way (as I think you found yourself, and I know if I had not known much about religion and had picked up a copy and started reading chronologically, without anyone to guide my understanding, I’d have given up on it.)

3 Michael Merritt

March 24, 2008 @ 3:16 am CET

Very nice post. In my own household, my mother is probably one of the most religious of all, but has never regularly attended church, I think. She did for a while several years ago while going through some tough times.

My dad, on the other hand, professes a belief in God, but is pretty outrightly against organized religion. Especially the more extreme they get.

So, I come from a household that doesn’t put a great importance on religion, and thus, neither do I. I place myself in the apathetic agnostic category, personally.

4 marc

March 24, 2008 @ 3:21 am CET

Richard Dawkins: … He very vigorously opposes teaching religion to children, but also opposes teaching them atheism. His view is that children are children and should not be labelled with the religious beliefs of their parents

Sorry, but that’s laughable.

The proper function of a parent in society is to provide structure for children, including - indeed, especially - the passing on of their most central beliefs to their children. Failure to do so is an abdication of responsibility.

The freedom that Dawkins advocates becomes more and more appropriate as a child’s maturity increases until they are able to accept the dull consequences of their decisions and gain complete independence.

Too much freedom too soon leads only to the creation of self-indulgent, insolent brats, a phenomenon that is far too common in 21st century America and can be observed at any local shopping mall.

5 Kevin H

March 24, 2008 @ 6:15 am CET

Well, CS, a good way to know your thoughts are important and your writings matter is that you get misquoted, so congratulations =)

I will say that Dawkins often uses the strawman approach when talking about religions, and this is coming from someone who believes the only intellectually honest belief is agnosticism. Simply put we have essentially zero evidence about the existence or non-existence of something we would label god.

6 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 7:10 am CET

Yes, we get people who write screeds against atheism, as a great danger to society, and then we get these atheists who write screeds against religion, blaming it for every problem and every evil in the world.

The remarkable thing, again (as with the politics of gay marriage), is the double standard people don’t see.

On the other hand, you get individuals like Dinesh D’Souza, who has handily debated Hitchens, and has shown that despite Mr Hitchens literary knowledge, he’s out of his depth when talking about religion.

I’m not religiously observant at all, and don’t prefer theism to atheism. I just get tired of professional intellectuals who aren’t brilliant at all yet think of themselves as smarter than the common person who may follow a religious tradition.

I was not that familiar with Dennetts views on religion, but I don’t have high regard for his work in philosophy in general, I think he misses the point often on what he’s arguing about.

On his view of religious education as stated here, I have to ask: if children are taught every religion, who is going to decide what religion is taught and what religion isn’t? Who is to say that a religion formed on the Klingon religion in Star Trek is less worthwhile to teach about than Christianity and Buddhism? It isn’t a different situation when a parent choses to teach their own religion to the child. A parent teaches their children a religion that is relevant to them. And as far as education goes, an anthropological interpretation of religion isn’t the most enlightening. You have to understand religion from a historical perspective, and how it changed human consciousness, and that involves learning everything attatched to it–philosophy, art, literature. You know, things that should be covered in other courses. Memorizing rituals of other cultures by rote isn’t important. Understanding their place in the history of thought is.

7 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 10:37 am CET

Argg, this is what happens when you live half way across the globe, while people are reading, you are asleep.

OK, first thing’s first C. Stanley, I wasn’t directing my criticism at you or your statements. Upon revising the text I realize that might not be as clear as I’d like. When I talk about people calling these authors “dangerous” and wishing to impose totalitarian measures to eliminate atheism, I’m not talking about anything you’ve said, but accusations that come from the author Michael cited in the previous post and also on a wealth of writing on the subject by others, who also seek to accuse them of demanding persecution of religion.

I understand that reading the titles might make you nervous, but actually reading what’s between the covers would help. Oh no question, most of them, especially Hitchens and Dawkins, are antitheists. They don’t just not believe any religion, they think that religion is a negative force in the world. Certainly, they would approve of working to lower religious belief in the world. But it does NOT follow that they wish to force this change, ban religions etc. And they are accused of such things, not by you, but certainly by others. The claims are based on no evidence whatsoever, and the accusation that they are “dangerous” is especially silly, since thus far not a single religious institution or person has been threatened with anything more than being offended by these writers. If they are dangerous, so are the Danish cartoonists.

As far as me referring to you is concerned, I apologize if I was unclear. I used your commentary on the education aspect of the post to make clear what the real (not imagined by the author that called them “dangerous”) positions on education were by the author. Your comment on that subject was extended, so I’ll just cite one part:

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that those atheists are attempting to ban the writings that I mentioned- but I don’t see evidence that they allow for the possibility of any value in those works, or that they’d encourage people to read them and then make up their mind.

That’s what the “make up their mind” part came out of. As you can see all the authors think that reading works about religion has some value, and they do not advocate teaching it as true OR false, at least not to children. I think that’s an excellent position, and wish more religious people would allow their children the same courtesy. Dennett describes teaching world religions as an essential part of education. What you won’t get is them giving a “special” value to religions, they would be taught like any other subject, and no intrinsic value or demerit would be given to any one religion.

8 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 10:53 am CET

On his view of religious education as stated here, I have to ask: if children are taught every religion, who is going to decide what religion is taught and what religion isn’t? Who is to say that a religion formed on the Klingon religion in Star Trek is less worthwhile to teach about than Christianity and Buddhism?

This has actually been talked about at some length by Dennett himself. It’s true that the inmediate question is which religions to teach, whether they get equal time etc. But then other subjects, such as History, have the same issue; there simply isn’t time to teach the history of every country and every culture with the same level of importance. A consensus would have to be reached. From what I can remember (I’m working from memory of a lecture of his) religions whose influence was greater in the country of the student, both in terms of the number of believers and the cultural influence in literature, music, painting etc., would be taught in greater detail. Also the religions with the greatest influence worldwide would have to be taught. That pretty much guarantees that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism would all be taught in some detail. Again, like with any subject, a consensus would have to be reached on the criteria and detail of each given subject.

9 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 12:25 pm CET

Claudia- on the ‘making up one’s mind’ part, I was referring to how those authors attempt to influence people (adults, I assume, being almost their entire audience, perhaps some older teens) to think about religion. They make the case for the negative aspects of it but mostly neglect the good, and when they refer people to the primary sources to learn more about religion there’s no direct reference to works that would put it in a much more favorable light- even to intellectuals who want to better understand religion without necessarily embracing it or becoming a believer.

That in essence is propaganda of a subtle (and thus dangerous) kind. It escapes the readers’ notice that there actually are these great works of theology and philosophy which can shed more light on why people throughout the ages have embraced a religious world view.

10 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 1:20 pm CET

I’ve arrived! Just kidding- I think that Claudia’s misinterpretation was an honest mistake, and I’m not troubled by it because I knew she’d accept that she’d misinterpreted me.

Intellectually, I pretty much agree with you. Neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God could be formulated into a falsifiable hypothesis. That’s why I find a lack of intellectual integrity in the antitheists’ arguments- they should know better. If they would stick to discussing the ways that belief in God can be misused, I’d have no problem with that (and would probably find much to agree with.)The fact that religious belief isn’t properly founded on an intellectual basis (no physical proof) is partly why I would completely disagree with the approach to education of children that you suggested, Claudia. Religious values are learned by observation of those who live them, and that is mainly how I pass my beliefs on to my children. It wouldn’t even be possible for me to raise them in an nonreligious household, because my faith is completely integrated into my life. And I’d not want to try to do that anyway; I think it’s absolutely imperative that they see the faith translated into action and to learn that what we call love is something that I believe is the manifestation of God in our lives and relationships. This isn’t something that I could hold off on teaching them until they are adults and decide whether or not to explore the possibilities of that viewpoint. Plus, marc is spot on with this:

I fully realize that insisting on that formulation for my own family means that other parents have the right to pass along their beliefs and values too, even the ones I strongly disagree with. I’d hope that most parents do so in a way that isn’t indoctinating, but instead giving respect to the child’s free will as he/she matures.

11 TP

March 24, 2008 @ 1:33 pm CET

You should read Hitchens before posting this. You prove his point.

12 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 1:36 pm CET

Oh no question, most of them, especially Hitchens and Dawkins, are antitheists. They don’t just not believe any religion, they think that religion is a negative force in the world. Certainly, they would approve of working to lower religious belief in the world. But it does NOT follow that they wish to force this change, ban religions etc. And they are accused of such things, not by you, but certainly by others. The claims are based on no evidence whatsoever, and the accusation that they are “dangerous” is especially silly, since thus far not a single religious institution or person has been threatened with anything more than being offended by these writers. If they are dangerous, so are the Danish cartoonists.

Claudia, if you concede that some of these people are antitheists, then why do you defend them so forcefully? Do you agree, for instance, that antitheism doesn’t have a sound intellectual basis because no one can logically prove that there is no God?

On the idea of people feeling threatened by the type of discourse they encourage, I’d say that the way we feel about it is similar to how you might feel about religious people praying for your conversion or attempting to proselytize. Now, you may recall that recently I stated my opinion that atheists and agnostics shouldn’t feel irritated or offended by that, so you may now feel that I’m applying a double standard. Let me explain why I don’t think that is so.

My point is that the reaction to each action is similar; a feeling that the people on the opposite side are not only holding views that differ from yours, but they’re pointing out that they don’t think YOU should believe the way you do. Is one side more justified in feeling this way? I think so, and I’ll explain why.

For you, when religious people pray for your salvation, it’s irritating (I think that was the word you chose in a different thread about this.) I’m not sure if your opinion is that they shouldn’t do it, or that you accept that they do it but it annoys you, but either way IMO you shouldn’t be very bothered by it at all. It’s the natural extension of our beliefs that if people need to know Christ to be saved, and if we care about others, we care about their salvation and thus will be motivated to pray for that. Since you don’t believe any of that is true, your belief is that those prayers will have no consequence so at most you should see it as a waste of someone’s time.

On the other side, though, we’re feeling similarly that the expressions of the antitheist viewpoint (which similarly aren’t agreeing to disagree, to live and let live) is irritating. But more than that, it really IS dangerous to the survival of faith as a viable worldview, because unlike in the situation with prayer (where you don’t believe that has any real power) we know that propaganda does have real power to sway opinion and belief. That’s why this stuff is considered dangerous. And again, it doesn’t have to be people calling for bans or religious persecution- they simply have to keep repeating all of the negatives over and over without acknoweding the positives, and they begin having a drowning out effect.

Even leaving all of that aside, it would be FAR more helpful for believers and nonbelievers to focus on areas of common ground by showing more respect for each other. In that regard, if you agree with that, then it’s important for you to understand that these are people we’d consider extremists on your side; and as in other situations like this, it’s important for the moderate voices on each side to speak out against the extremists- but instead of doing that, you’re defending them.

If you do feel that some people are overstating the perceived danger, and your concerned that they’re being castigated for totalitarianism that they don’t actually endorse, then at least show where someone really is saying that about them. I’ll have to go back and reread it, but I didn’t get that from the article that Michael was quoting.

13 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 1:37 pm CET

TP: who are you directing that toward?

14 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 2:43 pm CET

I second the question. TP, are you saying that I should read Hitchens before posting? I assure you, I have, and I’ve listened to him far more than any sane person should. I maintain that he is a bombastic arrogant ass. That doesn’t mean I disagree with him, I probably agree more often than I disagree, but I think he’s a terrible spokesperson for nonbelievers and he treats everyone like they were inferior dullards (I’ve literally see him do this with Dawkins and Dennett, so he’s an equal opportunity offender).

I defend them because they are being called "dangerous" and treated as if they were some sort of threat, their intentions being turned into a caricature of what they really are. I admire most of them greatly (except for Hitchens) even when I sometimes don’t agree with them (nor do they always agree with eachother). As to the intellectual basis of there being a god or not, I’m going to beg to not go back into that debate. We’ve had it before, I’ve explained my position which I’m aware does not satisfy you, but it’s what I’ve got. It’s here for anyone unfamiliar with it, on point number 1.

I in no way think that the religious don’t have a right to be irritated with what these people have to say. It’s perfectly natural that they do, and even feel angry. I find people praying for my salvation to be irritating, but that’s just my problem. I DON’T think that people praying for my salvation is dangerous. I likewise don’t think that authors who advocate evangelism and pro-religious education are dangerous, just wrong.

15 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 2:49 pm CET

You’ve completely sidestepped my point about why I feel there’s a difference. Did I make the point clearly enough but you disagree (if so, why?) or was I not clear? To recap, you have no reason to feel that your position is endangered by people praying for you, because you don’t believe that prayer has any power. We do, though, feel endangered by antitheists’ screeds, because we know that such propaganda has power to influence people in a negative way against our position.

16 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 2:57 pm CET

I know you don’t want to get off on the tangent of debating existence or nonexistence of God, but I don’t see how you can completely leave it aside because it goes to whether or not antitheism should be permissible in intellectual debate. You don’t seem to be an antitheist, but you don’t really acknowledge that as an intellectually dishonest viewpoint.

I reviewed your statement of beliefs and picked up on this:

Atheists treat god/s in the same way everyone else treats all mythological creatures, with non-belief until otherwise proven.

I think Michael’s comments today in the other religion thread show why we think this is a misapplication of that principle. What we’re saying is that we presume a supernatural force of some sort, at least, because the existence of the universe itself can’t be explained by natural laws and forces. Since matter and energy don’t come into existence spontaneously out of nothing, we need some other explanation of it that goes beyond our natural understanding. By definition it’s supernatural, because the natural laws as we know them can’t account for it.

This doesn’t of course lead directly to the acceptance of the particular type of supernatural force that we call God, but there are other reasons that we take it in that direction. But on the mere existence of the supernatural, in this case it’s far more logical than your analogy to belief in fairies would be.

17 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 3:06 pm CET

Hmmmm, I actually thought I adressed your point, though I obviously didn’t do it clearly enough. We seem to have issues with this sort of thing, I think it’s that we’re trying to be very polite about complicated topics, so everything gets a tad fuzzy LOL.

Let me rephrase. It’s not just that I don’t feel threatened by people praying for me because I don’t think it has power (I mean if it did have power it would be better, not worse, since they are praying for my salvation after all) I don’t feel that the writings of authors such as the one Michael cited are threats to me. Oh certainly there IS a point where writing can be a threat, I do believe in such a thing as incitment to violence, but someone who merely writes things and does not endevour to supress people like me is irritating, angering even, but not a threat.

Of course I will argue vigorously against them, since like you said, they try to influence people in a negative way against non-believers. I do see where there can be overlap, someone can encourage actions directed towards furthering or limiting the reach of religion. What I’m objecting to is the accusation that the authors mentioned are moving towards a forceful elimination of religion, because that isn’t based on actions or words of theirs.

18 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 3:08 pm CET

Argg, so tempting to take on the origins debate. Sadly, I have a seminar on neuronal development in 3 minutes, so that little piece of mental gymnastics is going to have to wait until later this afternoon.

19 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 3:20 pm CET

OK, we can resume later, but one more thing to mull over…

I understand better now what you were saying about the relative dangers (that you wouldn’t characterize anti-atheist writings as a danger, despite your feeling that they do attack your position.) But that’s just semantics really- what the author of that piece was saying is that the antitheists pose a danger because they use their beliefs dogmatically; if you don’t think the use of the word danger there is appropriate, substitute a different one but the idea remains valid IMO.

And you never do address the specific complaints that that author expounded on. Is he wrong in the way he characterizes Harris and Hitchens on their views of the Middle East? If so, how is he wrong? Is he wrong to say that they’re claiming a moral evolution of the species? (I seem to remember you stating this as your belief, and I don’t agree with that either.)

I know you wrote this post about one specific part of the debate, but you opened with a scathing criticism of the Hedges piece as an apocalyptic screed, but you don’t advance any argument for why you think he’s wrong on any of his points. You seem to lump him in with people who falsely claim that the antitheists want to establish a secular dictatorship, even though of course he never made any such argument. You also call his claims of anti-intellectualism laughable, but you don’t support that argument either (in fact, by agreeing that antitheism is different than atheism and you subscribe to the latter, I think you’re coming close to admitting that antitheism isn’t on firm footing in it’s intellectualism.)

20 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 5:33 pm CET

"This has actually been talked about at some length by Dennett himself. It’s true that the inmediate question is which religions to teach, whether they get equal time etc. But then other subjects, such as History, have the same issue; there simply isn’t time to teach the history of every country and every culture with the same level of importance. A consensus would have to be reached."

History shouldn’t be strictly about consensus either. You’re right when you bring up the issue of importance; history should be about teaching what was important historically. Religions also have different degrees of importance, and this doesn’t depend soley on the fact that they’re influential, but the reasons why they became influential. This requires assessing theological arguments in a historical setting. But if taught correctly this also undermines the argument that all religions are equal.

Personally, I think its much more important that philosophy and art be brought back into the curriculum than religion be put in (philosophy and art was in the curriculum in the 19th century, and removed by 20th century education reformers). This will allow students to approach issues about existence and god without relating to a specific religion. It should be taught in a more historical way though, so students have an idea of what views existed before us, and how we came to the views we have today.

21 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 7:17 pm CET

I don’t believe in theism or atheism, but i don’t believe in agnosticism either. I would say I’m agnostic about agnosticism. The reason is that I think you can say there is a God based on certain arguments and definitions of what God is, and I think you can say there is no God based on certain arguments and definitions of what God is. When people talk about God, rarely do they ever ask, what is God? In the end what tends to matter is what way of talking people find meaningful to their lives. Religion also transcends philosophical arguments about the existence of God, and also has a lot to do with maintaining social institutions and tradition and raising children.

The idea of God over the time that the West was still very religious, was often given proofs for by philosophers, some of them interesting and sometimes fallacious. Most of the time though, that God existed was a tautology, because God was just a referent to the ‘first cause’ or ‘prime mover’ that stood for nothing empirically in nature, it was a priori. The term "supreme Being" is actually a metaphysical term with "Being" capitalized for the same reason "Truth" and "Beauty" became capitalized. Being, as in the state of being, existing, and supreme, to mean, that state being that encompasses and gives ground to everything. Western philosophers believed eastern mysticism, which taught you couldn’t give God any qualities, was wrong, because at the very least, you could ascribe the quality of Being to him.

It was a Platonic concept, and you see this in the writing of Descartes. Western intellectuals believed that the Christian idea of God was equivalent to the Platonic idea of the Good; a unity that existed in nature. This is what gave rise to Deism, and later, Pantheism, but it was always resisted by the Church because the Church believed that looking at God in these de-natured terms, also de-personalized God and made it harder for people to understand spiritual issues.

Atheism in the late 19th century and early 20th century was revived as metaphysics started to be criticized and mysticism started being reassessed. A good reference on this is Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein in some interviews stated he believed God probably existed, but his philosophy attacked metaphysics in general, arguing that believing in abstract things, whether God, or Truth, or Good, or Beauty, anything like that, was nonsensical. Other philosophers supported a view of quietism, and argued that the ineffable could not be described in language, and that trying to describe the ineffable did a disservice, and that real spirituality was in action and not in thought, in worshipping life and not worshipping death.

So modern atheism actually arose from mystic, spiritual sentiments as a way of saying that the real way to observe spirituality is to never create a name for God or try to describe a God. Wittgenstein and others were also highly critical of science providing answers, believing that mysticism arises when you realize that science doesn’t fully explain the world.

Hitchens and others, who attack theism but support believes in truth and reason, aren’t necessarily aware of the history of this; that the idea of God became attacked at the same time the idea of truth became attacked and the idea of beauty became attacked; because God, like truth, was viewed as metaphysical nonsense.

22 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 7:50 pm CET

Great comment, #21, redfish. I knew some of that history of the philosophies but not nearly in that detail. I was vaguely thinking about this during some of my reading/commenting here, too, to try to figure out when it was that scientific rationalists (not sure if there’s another nomenclature for them) became so invested in atheism (and in my mind, antitheism.) How is it that scientifically minded people are going beyond saying that science can’t speak to whether or not there’s a Deity, to many of them now saying that since it can’t be proven that there is, that this constitutes proof of the negative?

23 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 8:11 pm CET

Cstanley,

it comes from early 20th century Positivism, which btw, argued that philosophy was just as much nonsense as religion. Scientific thinkers, since then, have fought against philosophy and any a priori argumentation, believing that knowledge relied on falsification, and that any positive statements of truth were wrong.

the real reason religion is in so much conflict with science today, btw, is that some scientific thinkers in this tradition have spent their careers arguing with philosophy and religion. Gould, for instance, insisting that evolution was completely random, lacked progress, and that complexity was relative. Instead of just attacking Creationists and defending evolution, focusing a lot of ill will on people who tried to make evolution compatible with beliefs in God, like Teilhard de Chardin, going so far as to try to imply Teilhard was a racist.

24 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 8:22 pm CET

Fascinating! What is your background, if I might ask?

25 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 8:29 pm CET

cstanley,

student in philosophy and art history

but i think most people can see a lot of this cultural battle of religion vs other ways of thinking is really about cultural relativism vs a particular universal version of truth.

its also the same reason why the postmodern west finds itself in so much conflict with an absolutist islam.

26 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 8:31 pm CET

Yes, but most people don’t have the historical context to know the roots of the dichotomy.

27 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 8:43 pm CET

redfish, thank you for the historical background, that was great. You should consider doing a post on the subject, I’m fairly sure Michael would love to host it. It would require going down to the level of mere mortals though

C. Stanley, though I feel a little bit like a commoner stepping on a tapestry in commenting on this after redfish, I’ll try, again, to explain the atheist position on origins.

It’s actually very simple. The atheist position on the origin of the universe really is "We don’t know".

Now that wasn’t hard at all was it? Oh I’m sure that many atheists will say "the Big Bang" but when pressed, all of them will admit, more or less readily, that before that no one has any clue. The difference between a theist and an atheist resides in that the atheist does not feel the need to fill that question with an answer for which there is no evidence. I could put the Christian god there, or the Hindu gods, or a bunch of pink marshmallows, it really doesn’t matter, because I have equivalent evidence for all of them. It’s not that I believe that "the Universe popped up from nothing" but that I’m comfortable saying that I don’t have that answer, nor does anybody, at present. Atheism is not intellectually flawed because the flaw you seek isn’t there, since atheism makes no claim to have solved the origin of the Universe. Again, I don’t believe in god(s) because I don’t see any evidence that would encourage me to, the very same way most of the sane amongst us feel about Jedi Knights. I can’t prove they don’t exist, but that does not lend disbelieving in their existence a lack of intellectual honesty.

I hope that clears things up, though I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it hadn’t LOL.

28 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 8:59 pm CET

Atheism is not intellectually flawed because the flaw you seek isn’t there, since atheism makes no claim to have solved the origin of the Universe.

Here’s the crux of it, I think. What you wrote here is accurate, but antitheism DOES make a claim. It makes an affirmation of the negative, and atheism to some degree makes claims about the relative plausibility of existence of God (which really isn’t measurable.)

So to one degree or another, there is some intellectual dishonesty because once you move beyond the agnostics "I don’t know", you get varying degrees of "probably not" to "pretty sure there’s no god" to "no need for a god, therefore Occam’s razor says there’s not one" to "NO WAY". As you move along that scale, you get increasing degrees of intellectual dishonesty, claiming to move the unknown into the known category. Or to claim as axiomatic the idea that belief in God is incompatible with reason.

Do you agree with that, at all?

If so, then since you’ve already admitted that Dawkins and Hitchens are antitheists, then you see why they’re being accused on anti-intellectualism.

29 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 9:02 pm CET

On the whole ‘no evidence’ bit, the thing is that if you strictly use the positivist mindset, then it’s a foregone conclusion that there will never be evidence of God in the scientific sense. But there is more to our understanding of life than our scientific understanding of the physical universe, and that’s why positivism is wrong.

When you allow for other philosophical study, you then begin to see what some of us take as ‘evidence’ of God. Again, not physical evidence but our experiences, and hypothesizing about the nature of man, nature of good and evil, and seeing that the God hypothesis fits.

30 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 9:08 pm CET

I wish it were possible to edit comments because I have something to add to my last one.

Claudia, I wrote #29 in response to your discussion where you draw equivalencies between Jedi Knights, pink marshmallows, and our belief in God, because when you allow for the possibility of studying the philosophies and theology (rather than using a scientific, physical evidence based approach) you very quickly see that those hypotheses aren’t at all equivalent. Same with Godless Cheesehead’s flying spaghetti monster.

31 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 9:19 pm CET

See, I KNEW it wouldn’t clear things up. Well, I suppose it’s natural that we aren’t going to solve this debate, only as old as religion itself, in the comments thread. Though it would be nice.

I think you have a mistaken impression of what antitheism is. It is not a specially strong form of atheism, where a positive claim is made where you are SURE there is no God the same way you are SURE that you have a computer screen in front of you. Antitheism does two things: First it says what all atheists more or less believe, god(s), in the absence of positive evidence (more on that later) can be presumed to be irrelevant, and for shorthand are said to not exist, like any other concept or thing for which there is no evidence, which is likewise said to not exist. This is the position of all atheists, though many probably haven’t thought it through that far. Now, the ANTItheist position is that additionally, religious belief is negative and that the world would be better off without it. I hope I don’t shock you too much by telling you that I’m an antitheist, albeit a rather soft one. I think that on the whole, the world would be better off without religious belief (I’d encourage you to not jump to conclusions about my motives, I can email you with them if you want, so as not to bore everyone to death) but what really worries me is extremism, religious or not, and don’t really feel threatened or offended by mainline religious beliefs, and certainly do NOT translate my beliefs on religions to the religious themselves. In short, I’m no Hitchens (thank god for that ) but I’m not quite neutral either.

As for the positivist belief system. Well, this may sound like a cop-out to you, but I’m a scientist and I think of proofs using the scientific method. I’m aware science isn’t everything, it’s just that positive proofs seem rather necessary for me to believe in anything as big and as (to my mind) improbable as God. I really can’t imagine myself believing in a supernatural being that created the universe without SOME evidence to that effect.

I hope I haven’t totally alienated you with this comment, but sometimes all you have is your truth. And no, I can’t prove that positively either

32 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 9:22 pm CET

its also whether you can talk about rational principles behind things in an abstract, a priori way. God in deism is just a name for the first principle of the universe, nothing more; not a bearded white guy on a cloud, or an elephant with many arms. A lot of the debate in postmodern philosophy about god is about the nature of language in shaping society, though. Some people will say that because its about language entirely, any set of concepts can equally stand in for the Western idea of God. But Christianity uses language in a way that present a god that is patriarchical (male), as we refer to god as He. Thats why theres a lot of contrast to some idea of a divine feminine in books like the Da Vinci Code. And the use of the word ‘God’ is also challenged on the basis that it also tends to support authority through the idea that the truth is known and explainable.

I think this is missing a lot though about historical truth. Even if we’re an egalitarian society now, societies in the formative phase which didn’t place men in the political position were abberant. It was less about oppressing women and more about natural, practical social relationships. In some way this still matters to modern society. Even as we become more egalitarian and diverse, in respect to law and culture, we shouldn’t expect traditional social roles to disappear off the face of the earth. Truth is found through understanding the reason behind this, and understanding history.

In abstract, the idea of God is about saying there is a unity in nature that is not decomposable or explainable in the laws of physics, and that while not explainable by science, is understandable through intuition. Or, not decomposable into ideologies, which can become treated like religions themselves.

33 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 9:32 pm CET

Claudia, redfish’s last paragraph is why I still think there’s some intellectual dishonesty in your viewpoint as you’ve now expressed it. Maybe that goes a bit too far- it’s more like an inconsistency.

I’ve had the impression, and I think you’ve even stated, that you are intensely motivated by interest in scientific exploration. And you admit that science has it’s limits, right? So why no curiosity to try to use other methodology to explore other facets of life that can’t be addressed by science? Or (perhaps here’s where I sense some dishonesty) aren’t you actually curious in that way because you like to enter these discussions?

It just seems to me that you consider yourself someone who likes to observe and try to understand other people’s religious beliefs, but since you ONLY allow the metrics of science to be used as a measuring device, you’re selling short the possibility of real understanding. You’ve made a foregone conclusion, but pretend that you are studying it with a more open mind that still acknowledges the possibility of the existence of God.

34 paul

Would you "support preventing children from learning Islam as truth" ? See "indoctrination of the investigative child-mind" by Hypatia, inventrix of astrolabe, planisphere en hydroscope;

"Fable should be taught as fable, myth as myth, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truth is horrifying. The mind of a child accepts them and only through great pain, perhaps tragedy, can the child be relieved of them. Men will fight for superstition as quickly as for the living truth — even more so, since a superstition is intangible, you can’t get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable."

35 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 9:49 pm CET

Paul, I would absolutely support the right of parents to teach Islam to their children. And I don’t know if you are aware of works by Tolkein, in which he explains his concept of myth as the remnants of Truth in the psyche of men. He wrote quite a good poem called Mythopoeia about that, and I especially like this stanza:

He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers beneath an ancient song,
whose very echo after-music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-pattemed; and no earth,
unless the mother’s womb whence all have birth.
The heart of Man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact,
Man, Sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons, ’twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we’re made.

36 Michael van der Galien

March 24, 2008 @ 9:54 pm CET

Every parent should teach their children that which they think is important. This means, in many cases, that the child will be raised with a religion. To ask parents not to do that is ludicrous… and in breach with human nature and parental obligations.

As for Islam: of course Muslims should teach their children what their religion is all about, what they believe and how to be a good Muslim. What kind of bigoted question is that?

37 Michael van der Galien

March 24, 2008 @ 9:56 pm CET

Would you "support preventing children from learning Islam as truth" ? See "indoctrination of the investigative child-mind" by Hypatia, inventrix of astrolabe, planisphere en hydroscope;

"Fable should be taught as fable, myth as myth, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truth is horrifying. The mind of a child accepts them and only through great pain, perhaps tragedy, can the child be relieved of them. Men will fight for superstition as quickly as for the living truth — even more so, since a superstition is intangible, you can’t get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable."

Problem is, it’s not a "myth" for religious people. And agnosticism and atheism are "myths" as well in so far that they could be wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism aren’t more intellectually right than religion. They just answer the same question with a ‘no,’ which also takes a leap of faith.

38 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 10:00 pm CET

Actually Michael, the word myth isn’t supposed to be a prejorative- though I’m sure that’s how Paul meant it. Myths are just particular type of stories which explain things; the word itself doesn’t mean that the story is fictional even though that’s the popular usage of it now.

39 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 10:01 pm CET

"Atheism and agnosticism aren’t more intellectually right than religion. They just answer the same question with a ‘no,’ which also takes a leap of faith."

Michael,

but I think religion is needed to point that out, and atheism to critique the flaws in religion. But i think the social point of religion is to be a center for a moral discourse.

40 Michael van der Galien

March 24, 2008 @ 10:06 pm CET

Christine - I have a fairly good education too - I know, but I think that Paul meant it as a slur.

41 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 10:08 pm CET

What do you think about the interaction of religion and secular humanism in moral discourse, redfish?

I can’t remember the name of the philosopher, but there was a Catholic who was excommunicated because he was embracing discourse with secular humanists (as I understand it.) Pope Benedict (in an interview when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) talked about this and said he still greatly respected the man and felt that the excommunication actually allowed him to more fully develop and express his ideas- but that the Church felt it scandalous for those beliefs to come from a Catholic.

In a way, my view of the morality of secular humanists is a bit like what we discussed earlier in paganism- they have part of the truth, but not the whole Truth. So the Church’s view then is that there’s a risk of moral error there, I guess. But at the same time, I can’t help but feel that it would be helpful for the two groups to find as much common ground as possible (in fact in political policy, I think that’s what is absolutely necessary.)

42 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 10:10 pm CET

Heh, I figured you probably did know it but felt the need to note it for other readers who might not.

Do you like the poem I quoted? It’s probably my favorite poem. If I’m not mistaken, this was what Tolkein wrote to attempt to convert C. S. Lewis, and it worked.

I partly pointed out the meaning of "myth" because Tolkein definitely didn’t use it in the prejorative sense.

43 Claudia

March 24, 2008 @ 10:12 pm CET

No Michael they, in fact, do no such thing. See the comment above for the explanation of why.

C. Stanley, if god is to be considered in the deist "first cause" sense, then the word "god" ceases to have the meaning that I, and most people, ascribe to it. If god is merely a word for the origin of the universe OK, I could believe there was one, even if I had absolutely no clue what it was.

However, the VAST majority of people who believe in God are not in fact thinking of a "first cause". Neither do you, you think of a certain god, who did certain things, had a son, sent him to Earth etc. These are very definite, very tangible things. They cannot be true at the same time as the claims of other religions, who also make positive claims about the actions and intentions of their god or gods. The minute god starts dealing with the physical world he (also a positive affirmation) is subject to tangible, scientific proofs. Philosophical "proofs"are just fine, as far as they go, but insofar as deities would have an influence in the real world, you need proofs also belonging to the real world. This is not to disparage philosophy, which I think is a very important part of human development, and which I wish I understood better, I just don’t think that it works for discussing the existence of a god, though it does for playing with the meaning of a concept like "god".

44 redfish

March 24, 2008 @ 10:16 pm CET

sure, but even so, without secular movements there couldn’t be creative progress. western culture has always been a synthetic force, taking from other sources and trying to make them compatible. same way Christianity couldn’t have its traditions without paganism. or how Western art became completely based on Greek myth.

the funny thing about the term secular humanism to me, is that Renaissance men understood themselves as both pious and religious, and secular and humanistic. They weren’t seen as contradictory. The use of ’secular humanism’ as a derisive term is modern, and I believe, was coined by someone who was also critical of developments from the Renaissance.

I don’t know if you’ve read Teilhard de Chardin, but there was a similar scandal with him. He was both attacked by atheist scientists and by the Catholic Church, because he developed a view of evolution compatible with Christian theology.

45 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 10:21 pm CET

I think the ‘first cause’ is pretty close to what I believe, though you are right that I experience a relationship sense with that ‘first cause’ and I believe that this is so because He hard wired me to experience it that way, just as we’re hard wired to experience the taste of salt, or the experience of sound, vision, etc.

Now the latter part (once you move beyond the ‘first cause’) are not falsifiable, so there we’ve moved beyond the limits of scientific understanding and into the realm of metaphysics or philosophy. I know it drives atheists crazy when believers say this, but these things are simply real to us because of experience, even though we know they aren’t the type of experiences like interactions with the physical world, which involve observable objects or measurable forces. You might then say that this is a barrier to your belief because you don’t have those kinds of experiences- but what I’m suggesting is that you first have to open your mind to the possibility that they exist. Not allowing for a philosophical mindset instead of the positivist one is like walking with eyes closed and saying you can’t accept that other people can see things, therefore the things must not be there.

46 C Stanley

March 24, 2008 @ 10:39 pm CET

Maybe a better way to explain, Claudia, is that the first cause concept explains my initial belief that this is most logical interpretation of the facts, which also then allows for a huge number of different interpretations of what that first cause or Truth is.

From there, I apply the philosophical approach, and in learning about the Catholic theology I found it to be an explanation which I choose to embrace. I don’t pretend that there’s evidence of it in the way that the fossil record provides evidence for the theory of evolution, but instead the evidence is experience as well as observation of the theology’s answers to questions about the nature of man and the universe (including the relationship to the First Cause, which I’ve now elevated to the status of a Being and one who desires to have a relationship with us.) My observation about those answers is that they resolve a lot of the questions I’d otherwise have.

47 redfish

March 25, 2008 @ 1:51 am CET

i think just choosing to affirm that there’s a first cause, is an attitude that leads you to believe there’s a reason behind everything in nature, and a reason behind why you believe the things you do, and a reason why society has the institutions it has. Choosing to deny it leads down a path of skepticism and always questioning belief.

people often comment on the fact that even if there’s no god, that it helps people mentally to belief in god (belief in belief). I think on the other hand what god may refer to is the very fact of how nature seems to work in a way that believing in god helps us; that is, in a round about way, the ultimate principle of nature

48 C Stanley

March 25, 2008 @ 1:17 pm CET

Yes, and this is what I was trying to express in my analogy to scientific inferences. It’s not that it’s exactly the same as inferring the presence of a celestial body because of effects on other bodies that can’t be explained without the presence of that other (undetected) body, but it’s a similar reasoning: without a first cause of some sort, I don’t see how science could explain the existence of our universe. No matter how far back in time we’re able to push the process (Big Bang, or the string theory/brane collision theory which could explain events preceding it) you never get past the question, "What came before THAT, and what set it in motion?" It’s an eternal open question, and we’re simply asserting that the answer to that question, the abstract eternity that preceded everything else and was causative of the processes that followed, can be given a name to describe it.

And yes, in a way I think that nonbelievers could better understand our belief in God if they simply looked at it as a ‘personification’ or ‘embodiment’ (neither term is completely accurate) of Good and Truth. We direct ourselves toward that, just as a secular humanist would direct himself toward the abstract ideas of those things, to determine a system of morality and ethics. That we see Him more as a father figure is irrelevant- it’s only our human way of trying to wrap our minds around an abstract. A parental nature is ONE form of goodness- the sacrificial love that one can have for another. Our God is the perfect example of that.

I think even religious believers who take things more literally usually know on some level that their God is the literal interpretation of a greater abstract entity (that’s why omnipotence is always attributed to Him.) Intellectual capabilities and traditions that one is brought up in factor in to the degree to which that awareness is there. And some people care a lot more about being more accurate by keeping God more abstract, while others find that the function is fulfilled (they’re better able to relate to a God who’s a being more like themselves) by keeping to a more literal interpretation.

49 BJ

March 26, 2008 @ 12:19 am CET

Good conversation going, let me add another atheist voice to the mix:

Do you agree, for instance, that antitheism doesn’t have a sound intellectual basis because no one can logically prove that there is no God?

No. Just because something can’t be proven doesn’t mean it’s plausible. All that can be not-proven is an origin, maybe. And even by the most generous application of doubt over that one point, the logical result of thinking through its implications leaves you with a supernatural entity so distant as to be inconsequential.

Dawkins admits that there is probably no such thing as a 100% atheist. But to pretend that some tiny fraction of a percentage of doubt makes them intellectually dishonest isn’t true. Any scientific theory must allow for the ability to be disproved. I am sure that gravity exists, but it’s possible that it doesn’t and we’ll discover there is something else that holds us down on the planet and keeps things in orbit. That’s what science is, but saying gravity exists isn’t intellectually dishonest.

On the other side, though, we’re feeling similarly that the expressions of the antitheist viewpoint (which similarly aren’t agreeing to disagree, to live and let live) is irritating. But more than that, it really IS dangerous to the survival of faith as a viable worldview, because unlike in the situation with prayer (where you don’t believe that has any real power) we know that propaganda does have real power to sway opinion and belief. That’s why this stuff is considered dangerous.

Propaganda does have a great deal of power, but your example is flawed. It isn’t the prayer that concerns me, but the propaganda behind the prayer. That the fact that I don’t believe means I am damned. That, generically speaking, morality comes from faith and the faithless must be saved from their immoral, heretical doom.

Look at some of the other comments. We must teach our children what is right and wrong and religion is required to do that. To you and most other religious people, the two are impossible to separate, so how can people without religion know the Truth?

There is a reason atheists are at the very bottom of the pile of groups people would trust in political office in North America, and that’s the propaganda of morality being tied to religion.

And it is that same propaganda, more narrowly focused, that my faith is more true than your faith, more moral, more whatever, that leads to pretty much every ill organized religion gets blamed for.

It is feeling that you are somehow superior, which is the same thing you project upon the "dangerous atheists" above: That they feel that they and other non-believers like them are superior to the deluded masses of faithful. Hitchens probably does, but I think that’s more a personal ego trip than an ideological viewpoint.

Dawkins, from my readings, clearly doesn’t. His, and no doubt most of the others, viewpoint is that if other people were encouraged to think critically and logically, that they would come to the same conclusions he and others have. Inherent to that is that there is nothing special about atheists like himself except opportunity and education.

No special cognitive abilities or secret insights, no monopoly on Truth with the capital T that implies some sort of absolutist doctrine and is at the core of every truly dangerous philosophy.

50 Kevin H

March 26, 2008 @ 1:02 am CET

Sorry, I haven’ gotten a chance to read everything, but I am curious about how CS would react to the following idea.

The cynical view of religion, especially comparative religion, is that the major thing which separates a person of a particular faith from another is the rituals involved in that faith: The form and number of prayer(s), the nameing and numbering of the dieties, the holy days etc. It is arguable that it is these practices which ‘indocrinate’ a particular person to a particular faith and lead to some of the nastier aspects of religion harped on by Dawkins and his ilk such as holy wars. So, would a reasonable compromise (at least in theory, if not in practice) be to remove children from all religious rituals until they reach an age of concent? In theory this should leave children free to see, as CS put it: "the faith translated into action and to learn that what we call love is something that I believe is the manifestation of God in our lives and relationships". Would this be unacceptable?

51 C Stanley

March 26, 2008 @ 11:22 am CET

Kevin: No, I wouldn’t agree with that. First, I don’t even agree with your diagnosis of the problem (which you admit is from a cynic’s perspective.) And if I did, I don’t think I would agree that this would be the solution.

The reason that your diagnosis is wrong IMO is that it is based on a biased, outsiders’ perspective of religious ritual. You see it as, apparently, something like a pissing match between various denominations, that we would have different outward signs of our faith in order to mark ourselves as the member of one tribe or another in the way that a fan of a sports team would, which would encourage rivalry (or in this case, tribalism.) You neglect to understand that there are just different belief systems, that the signs on the outside or the different professions of belief reflect different inner beliefs of the members of each religion or denomination.

The problem isn’t the outward signs, it’s that the differences (inner and outward) can be misused to claim a right to hate those who are different. This is the same part of human nature that allows for any kind of bigotry or tribalism, and you’re not going to wipe out that facet of human nature by disallowing the rituals (I realize that wasn’t exactly what you were advocating, but I get the sense that that would be your preference.)

As far as children- there is a slight point to which I’d agree, but it’s a bit different than the reason that you have for your idea. The Catholic Church actually does this to a degree, in that we don’t have kids partake in certain sacraments until they reach an age of reason. They aren’t put through a ritualistic confession at young ages, until they understand the concept of sin (right and wrong) at around age 8. They don’t partake in the Eucharist either, for similar reasons- it would be a meaningless ritual unless they have some cognitive understanding of it. And they aren’t confirmed in the faith until they are older teens- currently it’s done in our parish when they’re Juniors in high school- so this is when they’re asked to decide if they want to commit themselves to the Church.

All of these things can be done in a right or wrong way, of course, in terms of whether kids are experiencing an authentic witness to faith or whether they’re being indoctrinated to a false faith. I actually have confidence that most kids can tell the difference, and although it might be awkward, many young adults leave the churches they were brought up in and I think that’s what tends to happen when the beliefs they saw being professed don’t match up with actions (which would be the case with religions that use ritual in order to pretend they are better than others, for example.)

Of course, there are some extreme cases of kids ACTUALLY being brainwashed (like those Jesus camps) and although that’s a problem, it’s also what comes with the territory of freedom. I think we’re still on balance much better off having the mindset marc describes, that parents have the responsibility to teach their values to their kids, even though some people get that horribly wrong. Otherwise we quickly enter into a totalitarian type of mindset, where some particular group would have to decide what is acceptable and what’s unacceptable in the religious education of kids.

52 Michael van der Galien

March 26, 2008 @ 12:03 pm CET

You neglect to understand that there are just different belief systems, that the signs on the outside or the different professions of belief reflect different inner beliefs of the members of each religion or denomination.

Exactly.

53 Kevin H

March 26, 2008 @ 8:14 pm CET

Do you think things like the Crusades, Inquisition, Holocost, forced conversion of Native People and other events cited by Dawkins and his ilk were driven by fundamentally different moral values? I think any fair reading of history would say that the worst cases of religion have focused on form over meaning. This is why I thought downplaying the form without touching on the meaning of religion might satisfy all involved.

Personally, I don’t really care, raise your kids how you see fit and I’ll do that same (when I have them), I was just seeing if there was some middle ground, which apparently not.

I do think you are wrong about one thing though…Of course I don’t know your life story and can’t speak about you personally, but 95%+ of children grow up and believe in the religion they were taught as a child. Just as you were sure that there was bias when there was separation of the (I think Mississippi) exit polls that showed 80% of blacks for Obama and only 40% of whites, likewise when 95% of children raised Christian end up Christian and 95% that grow up Jewish end up Jewish (replace those two with any religion and it would be the same). Then the results must reflect more indoctrinated bias than universal moral compass. Even if parents do not intend to indoctrinate, the facts clearly run contrary.

54 C Stanley

March 26, 2008 @ 8:26 pm CET

Do you think things like the Crusades, Inquisition, Holocost, forced conversion of Native People and other events cited by Dawkins and his ilk were driven by fundamentally different moral values

Misplaced ones, yes. It’s like I said earlier- the problem isn’t in holding values and clearly defining them for the members of a group. It’s when some groups then use the difference between the values of the group and the values of those outside the group as justification for hate or violence. That’s the ‘conversion by sword’ mentality which is not consistent with Logos when applied to Scripture.

I don’t recall what you are referring to about exit polls, and I don’t know what studies you’re basing the 95% claim on. I do doubt that though, in that many, many people as adults still identify with a religious faith but really in name only (there are tons of secular Jews, and Catholics who feel a shared heritage with the Church but don’t believe or practice.) I guess you would probably take that as proof of your tribalism problem, but I look at it and shrug. Who is harmed by people who have fond memories of a Knights of Columbus fish fry or of lighting the menorrah with grandma when they were children?

I’m wondering too- what are the stats for kids raised by atheists? Is there any indication that an atheistic or agnostic environment gives a child a free slate, so that there are significant numbers of them who choose something other than atheism when they’re adults?

55 Kevin H

March 26, 2008 @ 10:04 pm CET

I’ll admit 95% was an estimation. I’d welcome some hard data. However I think my main point still stands. When your relgion has more to do with your parents religion than an independant assessment of an intrinsic moral compass, then indoctrination must be happening on large scale.

The deep philosophical differences between religions certainly exist, but my intuition is that they are complex enough that they are antithetical to the type of mob mentality which causes tragedy. I can easily see the common man being manipulated into anger over someone who wears different clothes, calls god by a different name, or has other ‘foreign’ rituals, but it seems to me much less probable that the common person would be whipped to violence over the fact if god is logical or not if the rituals were identical between the two factions.

However, your point about atheist parents leading to atheist children is certainly interesting, and maybe get’s back to contradict my original stance on rituals. I would actually assume that a reasonably high % of atheist children grow up to also be atheists. Unless we are just assuming that Atheism is the ‘true religion’, then that tendency must be bias as well. Perhaps the absence of ritual is somewhat of a ritual itself. To go to church regularly when it has not been what you have done in the past can seem daunting, and just as foreign (or maybe even more) than changing from one set of rituals to another. So I guess this leaves us with one imperfect solution. We will all indoctrinate our kids. On the whole they will simply believe things because we believe them without a truly independant verification. This also means that we can’t help but have some indoctrination from our parents. The best we can do is accept that and move on.

56 Claudia

March 26, 2008 @ 11:15 pm CET

I don’t have any formal data of course, but being from an atheist family and knowing quite some atheists, I can tell you that I would be very surprised if a significant portion of children of atheists became religious in their teens or early adulthood. But there is a difference between atheist and theist families that merits noting.

A theist family will introduce their children to their faith, their beliefs, rituals, rules actively. It’s not only that religion is around them and they know their parents are religious, it’s that their parents think it’s very important their child is religious as well and teach them accordingly. In atheist families things work differently. Though there are probably families where children are taught actively that "there is no god" in the same style of religious families (I personally disapprove of this) most atheist families don’t go that far. Some families decide to teach their children comparative religion (some people believe this, others that, you can decide when you’re older) but what’s most common is no teaching at all. In my home, religion was simply absent. Oh I knew other people were religious (though I was a bit hazy on the concept as a young child) and that my parents weren’t, but it’s not something that was discussed much, either way. Of course, in the absence of any other argument, a child will ordinarily adopt whatever they think the parents believe, even if they aren’t told that they’re supposed to. Even so, I considered myself a "closed agnostic" from the time I understood about belief in god (around 12, more or less), till just a few years ago, when I realized my position really was that of an Atheist (thanks to The God Delusion).

I guess the upshot is that I disagree with Kevin in that it’s the rituals that form the belief. I think that it’s overwhelmingly reinforcement by the parents that form the belief, not just in god, in everything (ask any member of Young Republicans what party their parents belong to).

57 C Stanley

March 27, 2008 @ 1:32 am CET

You know, without the data I think we’re really taking risks to draw conclusions, don’t you both agree?

Because honestly, if I think logically about what probably happens, I’d say that a fairly large percentage of intensely religious families don’t churn out good little Christian soldiers- instead, if they’ve been indoctrinated into a ritualistic religion (but empty rituals) then they’ll rebel. And same with atheism- if you have angry, bitter atheist parents teaching their kids that religion is the root of all evil, then the kids grow up and start to question that (if religion is what causes strife and unhappiness, then why are mom and dad so pissed off all the time?)

So really, I’ll bet that it’s more about the authenticity of the parent’s beliefs, one way or another. I have no proof of that any more than either of you do, but it’s my hunch.