1. Comment #58330 by deviljelly on July 24, 2007 at 1:46 pm

A nice tough interview as usual for hardtalk.... I wish the BBC would up the quality though. They are doing a high quality flash trail at the moment I wish this one was picked for that.


P.S. You *HAVE* to see this video ( http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/147) at 7:58

It blew my mind... are these things real?!?!?

Other Comments by deviljelly

2. Comment #58332 by Northern Bright on July 24, 2007 at 1:51 pm

I thought this a fatuous interview by Stephen Sackur. Is he aware, I wonder, that he simply regurgitated one old hat after another? Richard Dawkins is always so unfailingly polite when interviewing his opponents - it must have been extremely galling to be faced with an interviewer who seemed so convinced of the force of his frankly unintelligent questions, and was also rude and aggressive with it. (Not that RD can't more than hold his own!) Dawkins' own interviews prove that it's possible to question someone challengingly, rigorously and probingly without resorting to a Jeremy Paxman impression.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

3. Comment #58334 by Eamonn Shute on July 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm

>> It blew my mind... are these things real?!?!?

I love Kinesin too. Who would believe that a molecule could have a personality! This video gives more info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxRgqCjlcPM

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

4. Comment #58337 by crumbledfingers on July 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm

It's as if the interviewer looked himself in the mirror prior to the program and asked, "How can I present my questions in a manner such that it appears I have never read the book?" Which he probably hasn't.

Other Comments by crumbledfingers

5. Comment #58338 by redkris on July 24, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Sackur is continuing his Paxman impersonation i see. Oh dear! if only he had the intelligence to go with it. Another dose of simpleton questions for the atheist.

Nice vid deviljelly.

Other Comments by redkris

6. Comment #58341 by posiedon on July 24, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Sorry deviljelly, I couldn't watch your link, buffering every 5 or 6 seconds.

Other Comments by posiedon

7. Comment #58346 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Am I the only one that found the interview sad, but also strangely amusing? The conviction and aggression with which Sackur poses completely hackneyed and unoriginal questions was rather disappointing, but also pretty funny in the sense that the interviewer obviously had no idea how unintelligent and easy to answer they were. Spurting out old chestnuts like Einstein's God (read the first chapter of the God Damned book, Stephen), as if he was actually on to something, certainly elicited a smirk if nothing else. Like Grim Reaper says in the forums, the programme's called Hard Talk, so where the hell were the hard questions? He was certainly talking in a deliberately stern and 'hard' manner, but the actual questions were vacuous and ineffectual nonsense.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

8. Comment #58350 by martyb on July 24, 2007 at 3:05 pm

A good interview for people who are just getting to know about Dawkins' work.

The interview was done in the style that Hardtalk advertises.

Why expect anything else?

Other Comments by martyb

9. Comment #58352 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 3:14 pm

martyb

The way in which Sackur engaged with Dawkins could easily be construed as 'hard', but the actual content of the questions were easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey. That could easily be a consequence of the fact that Richard is unequivocally correct in his position, but a stimulating and intelligent discussion this was not! There is playing devil's advocate and there is looking to point score, and on this performance Sackur seems to be more comfortable with the latter. His assertion that it doesn't matter if you label children as "Christian" or "Muslim", for example, because they are just going to grow up to believe in what their parents believe in anyway, was just one example of his ludicrous line of argument. Also, this seemed to be his actual position, not just him playing devil's advocate, judging by the amount of time that he devoted to it!

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

10. Comment #58353 by maton100 on July 24, 2007 at 3:14 pm

What the fuck? Was Sackur supposed to interview Richard or debate him? Sackur runs his mouth like an annoying salesman.

Other Comments by maton100

11. Comment #58355 by martyb on July 24, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I can answer my own question. From the BBC website about HARDtalk:

'The half hour interview is the result of detailed research and in-depth investigations.'

It appears that this was not done!

Other Comments by martyb

12. Comment #58357 by Don_Quix on July 24, 2007 at 3:31 pm

I've never seen or heard of this person who is interviewing Dawkins before, but he reminds me of most of the obnoxious blowhards on Fox News and CNN these days. I'm pretty sure he asked every single cliched creationist "gotcha" question in the book. I was surprised he didn't pull out the old "Well, since the eye is so complicated, it must have been designed by something, so therefore there is a god. HAH! ANSWER THAT ONE SMARTY MAN!"

The question the interviewer should have been asking himself is, "Am I qualified to be interviewing Professor Dawkins?" Clearly, the answer would have been a resounding "NO!"

It is strangely comforting and disturbing to me that the talking heads on tv in the UK are just as idiotic as the ones we have here in the US ;)

Other Comments by Don_Quix

13. Comment #58358 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Don_Quix:

I don't think we've got anyone to match the raw, unintentional hilarity that is Bill O'Reilly, but we have our moments!

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

14. Comment #58360 by the_assayer on July 24, 2007 at 3:43 pm

crumbledfingers
I think this sort of argument at best is only ideological. A person who reads any book may not understand or follow the arguments completely. It could be that the author has poor communicative ability or it could be that the reader is too conditioned prior to the read that he takes off on a tagent of his own with every argument posed. Might it be, that idea of calling religious people "faithheads" further tightens the grip these prejudices have on them? I can think of a lot of books that I didn't completely
'get' on my first read or even the second. Often when we do a background search on the author or read a few of his/her articles you connect with the book in a better way.

I think the interviewer was clearly prejudiced, but that is what is required for a debate to be a debate. If the interviewer had completely followed our side of the argument and had't taken an effort to compare it with his existant prejudices, he would be agreeing with Dawkins all the way.

Dawkins was moderately good in this debate.I don;t think he handled the point of Stalin and Hitler very well.

But I see a major problem here. Atheists are constantly being suspected of having no moral values or atleast our position seems precarious. To a believer an important reason for belief in God is that it gives a ready-made system of morality which for the most part gaurantees a life of peace and happiness. Assuming an authoritative God makes these rules absolute and uncompromisable.
You see they have figured out a way towards peace and harmony, albeit a pretty close-minded and dogmatic one.

Now the basis for secular morality will have to be a rational one. Can there be one? I'm optimistic.
We need to amp up our research in psychology and neuroscience inorder to come up with emperical findings that we can use to propose a secular theory of morality.

Other Comments by the_assayer

15. Comment #58362 by the_assayer on July 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

hmmmm... i realised a mistake in my argument... this was an interview, not a debate...

But I guess an interview is bound to become a debate especially with touchy subjects like religion.

Other Comments by the_assayer

16. Comment #58363 by the_assayer on July 24, 2007 at 3:53 pm

what is the precedure to get articles posted?

Other Comments by the_assayer

17. Comment #58364 by etny on July 24, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Stephen Sackur does not really bother to listen to Dawkins' answers. He keeps interrupting him and just follows his "attack" script. This does not make for an interesting discussion at all. The content of the book is hardly touched upon. This is getting tedious.

Other Comments by etny

18. Comment #58365 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm

"...but you were raised as an Anglican child?"

"Yes, so what?"

Nearly spat coffee all over my screen.

Stephen Sackur also displays a hugely ignorant view of the selfish gene theory.
Obviously very little detailed research done, maybe there is just a standard question card kicking around for interviewing atheists.

Other Comments by Nails

19. Comment #58367 by Don_Quix on July 24, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Nails wrote:
Nearly spat coffee all over my screen.

Stephen Sackur also displays a hugely ignorant view of the selfish gene theory.

I had a very similar reaction. The depth of his complete cringe-inducing misunderstanding of "The Selfish Gene" and the concept of memes made me feel embarrassed. What sucks is that a fair number of people who saw this interview will now also have the same misunderstanding.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

20. Comment #58368 by Theocrapcy on July 24, 2007 at 4:11 pm

This was embarrassing to watch, Sackur is way out of his depth.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

21. Comment #58369 by Thor on July 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Come on, people, it wasn't THAT bad, was it?

Yes, the interviewer was very persistent but that's his job. He HAD to voice the arguments that are commonly used to counter Dawkins because he wanted Dawkins to answer these counterclaims - I for my part think that is perfectly reasonable.
Why would you blame him for challenging Dawkins on his positions?
It's what this TV format is supposed to do.

The interview was very thorough and straightforward and Sackur gave Dawkins all the time he needed to make his points.
Comparing this to the tendentious drivel of a Sean Hannity is really an insult to this British journalist.

No offence, but sometimes the knee-jerk attacks on anyone challenging Dawkins' positions - and be it only for the sake of journalistic clarity - get a little out of hand here.

Other Comments by Thor

22. Comment #58370 by baal on July 24, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Nice to hear Richard Dawkins again, although the interviewer seems to be a bit thick - he isn't raising any good questions at all and seems to have a small grasp of logic, a bit like a school bully.

Other Comments by baal

23. Comment #58371 by Veronique on July 24, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Posiedon,

Buffering all the time gives me the shits as well. What I do is wait 'til the vid starts , then click the stop/pause button and go make a cup of tea.

By the time I come back, the buffering is complete and I can sit and watch the vid without any interruption and enjoy the cuppa as well! I wish he showed more of the vid that he made. Stunning stuff. Found it!!

Thanks Eammon, saw the youtube clip and found this one which is the full version of the TED talk. At least it looks like it to me. The voice over is great as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjexZ88wIno&mode=related&search=

There are some wonderful related vids on youtube as well. You don't have to worry about buffering on these Posiedon:-). Sorry about the link - I don't know why it didn't work. You'll have to copy and paste.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

24. Comment #58372 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I keep reiterating to my four year old the need to say please and thank-you. He seems to be finally picking it up. I wonder if, whilst perhaps approving of my actions, Mr. Dawkins might label a friend of mine, who remarked that I had a polite child, wicked for doing so?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

25. Comment #58374 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Thor:

"No offence, but sometimes the knee-jerk attacks on anyone challenging Dawkins' positions - and be it only for the sake of journalistic clarity - get a little out of hand here."

I'm sure that Stephen Sackur is a journalist with a great deal more integrity than many of the nut-cases who have interviewed Dawkins in the past (O'Reailly, Hannity), and it is for exactly the reason that he is a British anchor working for the respected BBC, and not Fox frigging news, that makes this interview so disappointing. No originality, no 'hard' questions, only seemingly unresearched and regurgitated claptrap, with an air of aggression which suggested that there was more behind his confrontational demeanour than mere devil's advocacy. The way in which Sackur, for example, went to such pains to assert that it doesn't matter if you label children as "Christian" or "Muslim", because they are just going to grow up to believe in what their parents believe in anyway, seemed to indicate that he wasn't just voicing a contradictory point of view, for the sake of fairness, but that he himself actually believed in the crap that he was spouting. There's being a good journalist and playing devil's advocate and there's seeming to have strange ideas about the topic at hand, and on this evidence Sackur falls into the latter camp.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

26. Comment #58375 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 4:42 pm

fides_et_ratio:

"I keep reiterating to my four year old the need to say please and thank-you. He seems to be finally picking it up. I wonder if, whilst perhaps approving of my actions, Mr. Dawkins might label a friend of mine, who remarked that I had a polite child, wicked for doing so?"

The difference is that children who are labelled "Christian" and "Muslim" are labelled as such before they can possibly have any understanding of what this implies. Being polite does not require anything more than a superficial understanding of the term; being "Christian" or "Muslim", does.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

27. Comment #58376 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I disagree, I don't think my four year old understands the term or concept of politeness. He understands that when he says please and thank you he's more likely to get what he wants and he gets praised. He also enjoys saying his prayers before he goes to bed, in fact he asks to say his prayers. Why is it wicked then to label him a child of faith (something he chooses to do) and not a polite child (something he doesn't understand but does because of material reward)?

I ask because I genuinely don't understand Mr Dawkins position on the arbitrary wickedness of labelling.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

28. Comment #58378 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:53 pm

In addition. Is my son inherently polite or even actually polite, or does he act in this way becaus ehis parents tell him to? In which case is it not wicked to label my son because of the beliefs of his parents on manners? Why is my friend able to assume that my son shares my belief on manners?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

29. Comment #58379 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 4:56 pm

fides_et_ratio

Your child is a polite child. His actions confirm this. You are obviously a good parent, and I wish there were more like you. It is perfectly reasonable to call your child a polite child. He might also be a boisterous child, a charming child, a happy child, a fair child or a troublesome child. These are all observations from watching your child and commenting upon his behaviour. However, we cannot label children as belonging to a religion, because children, and especially four year old children, are not old enough to examine the available evidence and decide for themselves what their chosen faith might be. Ascertaining whether we're boisterous, or troublesome, or polite, does not require internal pondering and reflection. Deciding whether we accept the tenets of a chosen religious faith, does.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

30. Comment #58380 by martyb on July 24, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Now a comment on the content.

What I got out of the interview is that Dawkins would be happy with the major religions if they were considered with the same validity as the other thousands of other beliefs out there.

Is this what others heard?

Because I am new to his work, though not his beliefs, can someone point me in the right direction to find out more.

Other Comments by martyb

31. Comment #58381 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:04 pm

fides_et_ratio:

"In addition. Is my son inherently polite or even actually polite, or does he act in this way becaus ehis parents tell him to? In which case is it not wicked to label my son because of the beliefs of his parents on manners? Why is my friend able to assume that my son shares my belief on manners?"

Good manners are ubiquitously deemed to be a good trait for an individual to have, whether they be Christian, Muslim or atheist. Kind of like learning not to spit on the carpet, or not to pee your pants after a certain age.

Let me put it anther way. If I told you that my four year old son was a Marxist, would you not think that that was an entirely ridiculous thing for me to say? How is your calling your son a (presumably) Christian child any more absurd than that?

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

32. Comment #58382 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

I disagree, much as I love my child and hope that in some ways I am a good parent, I don't think his actions show that he is a polite child. I think his actions show that he likes to get things he wants and he knows that he wont get them unless he says please. I also think that he says please because I keep telling him to say please in an attempt to imbue him with my own morality. Interestingly to me is the fact that he asks to pray, and derives some inate pleasure from praying. I really don't think that he is polite (yet). Why then is it 'wicked' to label him a child of faith and not 'wicked' to label him a polite child?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

33. Comment #58383 by sane1 on July 24, 2007 at 5:07 pm

This interviewer is a putz. Needs to be slapped.
"...atheism, your belief system..." "You are an apologist for religion." just inflamatory, nothing more. Must look up to O'Rielly.



Other Comments by sane1

34. Comment #58385 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Dawkins is not saying that we cannot label our children per se. Of course not. If your child is polite, then we are perfectly reasonable in describing him as such. If he is good-natured, then of course we can label him in such a way. However, when we start to attribute labels to children for no other reason that because it is what their parents believe, then that is wholly unfair and not at all reflective upon what the child himself actually believes.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

35. Comment #58386 by Veronique on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm

27. Comment #58376 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:50 pm

There is no way any parent can avoid conditioning his child. You are the one who teaches him to speak (with an under the radar inherent connection to your speech and language and understanding patterns). You are teaching him your morality and he's learning that, in order to get what he wants, he has to come to the party to your instructions.

How did your four year old even know what a 'prayer' was? My guess is that you taught him or, at least, he observed you, asked you what you were doing, absorbed your explanation and then copied you. It doesn't necessarily mean he has any real idea of the underlying convoluted reasons behind the concept of prayer, because he is just too young.

What the others are getting at is that he can't possibly have made a rational, thought-out decision to engage in prayer to an unseen being. Four year olds are too concrete to conceptualise. So you are passing on what RD calls the religious meme. It gets passed on without due rational consideration to the child. As does everything else you teach him in his concrete years.

It's only later that he will be able to assess, adopt or reject. And that depends on how much you instruct him and how much information you give him and what he hears from others in his world.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

36. Comment #58387 by toomanytribbles on July 24, 2007 at 5:11 pm

it seems to me that any 'in-depth' (but quite shallow) research that went on before this interview was exclusively on the critiques of TGD and not on the book itself. the questions were old and tired and the interviewer was unaware that they've been discussed extensively. his interruptions during RD's answers hinted more that he was eager to go on to his next planned point than to actually understand the answer being given.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

37. Comment #58388 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:12 pm

fides:

"I think his actions show that he likes to get things he wants and he knows that he wont get them unless he says please."

Well, in that case, your child is not a polite child but a cunning and conniving child! I like him (or her)!

It is wrong to attribute labels like "Christian child" because we are not describing a "Christian" child, we are describing a child of Christian parents. Your child is not Christian; you might be but your child is not old enough to understand what a Christian is yet.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

38. Comment #58390 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm

32. Comment #58382 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Interestingly to me is the fact that he asks to pray, and derives some inate pleasure from praying

Have you ever considered that your child finds that by paying he is pleasing you and derives pleasure from your approval?
If pleasure from praying really was innate, children of non-believers would do it and probably some other animals as well.....

Other Comments by Nails

39. Comment #58392 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Veronique:

"It doesn't necessarily mean he has any real idea of the underlying convoluted reasons behind the concept of prayer, because he is just too young."

Indeed, and I also enjoyed the veiled insult mixed in there as well. :)

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

40. Comment #58393 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm

35. Comment #58386 by Veronique on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I'm not sure I buy into Memes, I believe the scientific community is mostly sceptical about the whole thing. Nonetheless, the point I was making is, why is it 'wicked' to label a child who wants and chooses to pray as a child of faith and not wicked to label a child who has no understanding of politeness (but a good understanding of rewards) as polite.

As I repeat, I genuinely don't understand the arbitrary nature of the supposed wickedness of labelling. What is this moral judgement based on? is it merely the opinion of an Oxford scientist?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

41. Comment #58394 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Oh dear. It's 1:20am, I'll let you guys handle this...

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

42. Comment #58396 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:25 pm

The difference between faith and marxism is that prayer is a practice that only people of faith share, my son chooses of his own volition, without reward, to pray. If he chose to read the communist manifesto and pledged adherence to it's ideas I would label him a marxist. Faith is much more simple than that, so simple that even a child can grasp it.

Mr. Dawkins difficulty in all this is that one of his arguments is that faith is childish. If this is true then it follows that children can have faith, therefore it is not only not wicked but right to label a child as having faith if he demonstrates a tendency towards the things of faith, as my son does when he prays.

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Dawkins inconsistancies is to conclude that he doesn't understand faith.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

43. Comment #58398 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

"The difference between faith and marxism is that prayer is a practice that only people of faith share, my son chooses of his own volition, without reward, to pray."

I agree with Nails in that it is more than likely that your child is praying because he is copying your lead, and that he probably gets rewarded when you make noises to the effect that you approve of his praying. Getting four year olds to pray, when they have no idea of the "convoluted" reasoning behind such an action, is, if not wicked, akin to coercing them to do something that they do not fully understand in order to make you, the parent, feel good.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

44. Comment #58399 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:32 pm

38. Comment #58390 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm

'Have you ever considered that your child finds that by paying he is pleasing you and derives pleasure from your approval?
If pleasure from praying really was innate, children of non-believers would do it and probably some other animals as well.....'

Interestingly he doesn't show the same inclination to seek my approval by; washing the dishes, washing himself, not crying when he doesn't get what he wants, eating his greens, not snatching from his brothers, watching the news, cheering for West Ham etc...

Just because we can gain an inate pleasure from something, it doesn't mean we don't have to be shown how to do it. I remember my first girlfriend only too well!

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

45. Comment #58400 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:34 pm

43. Comment #58398 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I think you must have misread me, I've said it a few times here, my son is not coerced into praying, he chooses to pray and enjoys praying. Trust me, four years olds don't choose to do something on a regular basis unless they enjoy it, no matter how much they may seek their parents approval.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

46. Comment #58401 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:35 pm

43. Comment #58398 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

But thank you for your graciousness in conceding that it is not wicked to label him a child of faith.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

47. Comment #58402 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:36 pm

fides:

"Interestingly he doesn't show the same inclination to seek my approval by; washing the dishes, washing himself, not crying when he doesn't get what he wants, eating his greens, not snatching from his brothers, watching the news, cheering for West Ham etc..."

Eating icky vegetables and washing oneself is an effort for the majority of children. Closing their eyes and pretending to talk to a mysterious invisible man must seem like terribly good fun, and so I am not in the least surprised that your child chooses to forego the other nasty business in favour of the relatively cozy night-time praying ritual.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

48. Comment #58404 by MikeJ on July 24, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Anyone else notice The Professor's use of "privilege" as a verb near the end there? I thought it was funny since I just re-read "Post-modernism Disrobed," in which he pokes fun at it as an "in word."

Other Comments by MikeJ

49. Comment #58405 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm

"I think you must have misread me, I've said it a few times here, my son is not coerced into praying, he chooses to pray and enjoys praying. Trust me, four years olds don't choose to do something on a regular basis unless they enjoy it, no matter how much they may seek their parents approval."

Whether your child chooses to pray or not, at four years old, he cannot possibly have thoughtfully pondered the reasons behind his praying, and whether he enjoys it or not, he is only doing so because it seems like a bit of a laugh. It is not because he has had a bit of time to think about it, in order to inwardly and privately accept the tenets of YOUR chosen faith. Four year olds do not yet have the intellectual capacity to do so.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

50. Comment #58406 by Veronique on July 24, 2007 at 5:49 pm

40. Comment #58393 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm,

RD only coined the word 'memes' in 1976 - that's not very long for the scientific community to investigate, postulate and otherwise test the concept.

If you think of polite behaviour as being useful to the child and, indeed, to all people living within a society that rewards 'harmony and co-operation' and not 'rude, boorish and disruptive behaviour', then teaching a child to behave in ways that will help him in his continued contact with his society can be seen as positive.

The same does not apply to belief structures. Unless, of course, he will be castigated, cast out and isolated if he doesn't subscribe to the prevailing belief system of his society.

RD's point is that labelling a child 'christian', 'muslim', 'marxist', communist', whatever (including atheist labels) just restricts a child's ability to assess for himself if that belief is to his liking or whether the child is able to discard belief systems at all. It is in this sense that RD sees such labelling as tantamount to an emotional prison.

That fact that fear and love seem so intertwined in religious belief that an indoctrinated child becomes so entangled in the stories, myths and powerful images that attend religions actually stifles his emotional ability to search outside the religious tenets. Fear of being 'bad' and doubting often puts paid to any rational curiosity.

I would prefer to teach my child the manners needed to exist harmoniously within his society and leave the 'big' questions of why, how and what for, which are rightly seen within a scientific and philosophical framework, to a stage when the child actually starts asking intellectual questions. As he will surely do, as he becomes aware of the myriad belief systems that abound in any society.

Labelling the child religiously creates a division between all possible beliefs to which he could be drawn later on, or no belief at all. It has to be his choice, not that of his parents.

Maybe let go of the 'wickedness' of labelling and just see labelling as deleterious to a child's developing brain, mind and curiosity. RD calls it wicked and maybe that's a bit strident. Others, and RD, have called it 'child abuse'.

I am not so much caught up in the descriptive floweriness as the underlying contention that denial of the child's inherent individuality and natural growth in wonder is compromised by labelling and instructing in non-evidenced belief systems:-)

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique