Moniker wrote:Hi, Marg. I typed up a lengthy reply earlier. Copied it to paste it later and then forgot and just copied something else by accident. Should have saved it on notepad or word. oops. Anyway, I'm not redoing it. I'll just state what I intended to reply to.
Yes I did the same for a reply to Trevor and then lost interest in rewriting it.
My comments in this thread were not in any way shape or form connected to Dawkins, at first. I was replying to beastie and how I view the human tendency for clan mentality as the problem our world faces.
Right but notice I included Beastie's comments and in my reply above I mentioned I wasn't replying to you per se.
You then asked about Dawkins and I replied to your comments. I don't disagree with much of what Dawkins says -- mainly I am turned off by how he presents his message about religion. Most of my issue with Dawkins and his consciousness raising is how he goes about it -- I don't know why this upsets so many atheists -- yet, it apparently does. :)
I don't think Dawkin's is perfect but I disagree with the criticism mentioned in this thread that he wants to eradicate religion, that he thinks science leads to a utopian society or that he thinks there existed in the past a Golden Age of science that we should get back to. All that I disagree with.
I don't think I misrepresented anything about Dawkins as I merely commented on 2 things:
1. I disagree that calling a 4 year old child in a nativity scene a Christian is akin to child mental abuse.
Well he never brought that up as an example of child mental abuse. He brought that up as how most people label kids willingly by the religion of their parents but don't accept labeling them if the parents are atheists or agnostic. It's perfectly acceptable in media or for people generally to describe a child as Jewish, Christian, Muslim but do you ever hear of children being described as atheists, or agnostic. Dawkins is pointing this out to raise the consciousness of people. So you misunderstand him and misrepresent him when you use that example as if he is saying the nativity scene is child abuse.
I don't think children that are indoctrinated with religion are necessarily being abused -- in some cases I would say it is abuse. I would say there should be a scale.
And I'm sure Dawkins would agree with you. Dawkins point is that children should be taught how to think not what to think. He says everyone should read the Bible, to understand classic literature. I'm sure he is all for everyone being taught the various religions in the world.
I was commenting on his use of the terminology, for the most part, and how this would more than likely turn off those that are moderates to a certain degree.
Are you still talking about the Nativity scene, if so you misunderstood his point.
I understand how he views religious indoctrination of children (I disagree with it not being put on some sort of scale in terms of mental abuse) and don't think children are necessarily being mentally abused by their parents because they choose to make them participate in religious festivals,
Again I believe you are referring to the Nativity scene in which he was not using it as an example of abuse. He was using it as an example of how we view or label kids.
learn about their parents religion.or even label them according to their religious views -- even without a choice.
Parent can label however they wish, but why should the media label a child with a certain religion just because the parents subscribe to it. The point is would a reporter ever write a story of that Nativity scene and instead of describing the children as Jewish, Christian...describe them as atheist and/or agnostic. The reporter wouldn't do that, so why not? Dawkins is raising one's consciousness of this.
I just do not agree with that, at all, and yet, that's not what I was focused on. I was mainly commenting on his use of terminology and how this would turn off those he may wish to reach.
As mental abuse? As he points out many people have long lasting scars from early indoctrination. I think Dawkins would agree with you that the abuse can be considered on a scale. Intense indoctrination would be more abusive than less. Restricted access to other points of view or discouragement of questioning a religious point of view could also be considered contributing to abuse. So it's not a black and white issue, with every child being indoctrinated being treated with equal abuse.
2. I commented that I think it's likely, from some of Dawkins' comments, that he would be pleased if religion was eradicated.
I understand what he's attempting to do, and don't have an issue with it. I mainly am turned off by his approach. To put this into perspective for you: There may be a number of politicians that are in the same party with the exact same message. They all want to get their message out and get their platform into legislation -- they may all approach the citizens with different techniques. I think it's perfectly acceptable to critic their use of rhetoric and call into question if it's actually successful at reaching those they wish to do so. I was mainly commenting on how I viewed his approach to those that he wished to reach.
Look I'm just pleased that he's raising the consciousness of people on the issue of religion. Someone open minded, someone not looking to solely criticize may come away from his book with a better appreciation of religion in the world than they previously had. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. I don't expect someone like Kevin to read what he writes, or if they did to read with an open mind. His target market is really a liberal religionist or atheist/deist. I had no interest in reading his book until I started reading criticisms here and wanted to see what Dawkins actually does say.