Print
Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family
by Anne Karpf, The Guardian
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2199794,00.html
If Richard Dawkins had his way, a fair number of you and, as it happens, me, would be had up for child abuse. According to him, that's what religious indoctrination of children by their parents is. And if you can sue for the long-term mental damage caused by physical abuse, he argues, why shouldn't you sue for the damage caused by mental child abuse?
If you accept Dawkins's characterisation of religion, you'd probably agree. Religious parents, to him, are Mr Dogma and Mrs Bigot: they terrify their kids with tales of eternal hell, fire and damnation, when - that is - they're not carrying out female circumcision or coercing them into forced marriages. Flat-earthers the lot, they're brainwashers, fanatically opposed to science and rationality.
Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender? I certainly don't recognise myself in this caricature. That may be because, while I've encouraged my kids to experience a fair bit of religious observance, I personally have very little religious belief. I love some religious liturgy in the same way that I love poetry, the music in a synagogue can do powerful things to me, and the enduring ritual I find moving. Aren't there contradictions like this in all but the most orthodox families? I know dozens like mine, where the children are regularly exposed to religion but are also fearsomely contrary on every subject.
In fact I'm not sure what Richard Dawkins traduces more - religion or families. Certainly his view that religion is the one sphere of society in which it's accepted without demur that parents have an absolute right over what their children believe is a bizarre one. Where does the fellow live? Parents attempt to exert control over almost every other aspect of their kids' lives as well. And parents almost invariably fail. Dawkins himself had an Anglican upbringing but began doubting the existence of God at the age of nine.
The total distinction often made between religion and other belief systems also strikes me as deeply disingenuous. All parents believe in something or other (often just as passionately as religious ones do), whether it's human rights or whether they worship in the temple of rising house prices, and most want to transmit their values to their kids. Dawkins says he flinches when he hears a child referred to as a Christian child rather than the child of Christian parents, for you wouldn't talk about a Marxist child, and how can a four-year-old choose their own religious belief?
He's wrong, and partly wrong. Talk to the American child of 1960s activists and they might well describe themselves as a "red diaper baby". And sit in a car with a bunch of 10-year-olds discussing reincarnation, as I did recently, and you'd have heard as passionate an engagement with moral, religious and philosophical issues as you'd come upon in any Muslim madrasa, Jewish yeshiva or other kind of seminary. The difference between indoctrination and education is whether you use religion to try to open up debate or close it down.
Atheist fundamentalists, I can't help thinking, see religion in their own image: they're curiously drawn to the fanaticism of other fundamentalists. And in the middle sit the rest of us, struggling to impart to our kids some values that go beyond the material, commercial or purely rational, though not necessarily incompatible with all those. I want my children to know about the long cultural tradition that they come from. And yes, if I'm honest (and though I recognise I might fail), I'd like them to continue this in some way.
In a report last month, Harriet Becher found scores of studies with the same findings: religious families were more stable and (to a small extent) happier, the parents more involved, nurturing and family-centred. We know kids have a hard time in chaotic families: perhaps, at its best, religion can provide a valuable structure as well as community support.
I've met enough religious crazies to know that there are a lot out there. But there are plenty of non-religious crazies too, and the idea that religious families are conservative, autocratic and dogmatic rather than humane, moral and questioning (or perhaps all six) - that's the Dawkins Delusion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2199794,00.html
If Richard Dawkins had his way, a fair number of you and, as it happens, me, would be had up for child abuse. According to him, that's what religious indoctrination of children by their parents is. And if you can sue for the long-term mental damage caused by physical abuse, he argues, why shouldn't you sue for the damage caused by mental child abuse?
If you accept Dawkins's characterisation of religion, you'd probably agree. Religious parents, to him, are Mr Dogma and Mrs Bigot: they terrify their kids with tales of eternal hell, fire and damnation, when - that is - they're not carrying out female circumcision or coercing them into forced marriages. Flat-earthers the lot, they're brainwashers, fanatically opposed to science and rationality.
Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender? I certainly don't recognise myself in this caricature. That may be because, while I've encouraged my kids to experience a fair bit of religious observance, I personally have very little religious belief. I love some religious liturgy in the same way that I love poetry, the music in a synagogue can do powerful things to me, and the enduring ritual I find moving. Aren't there contradictions like this in all but the most orthodox families? I know dozens like mine, where the children are regularly exposed to religion but are also fearsomely contrary on every subject.
In fact I'm not sure what Richard Dawkins traduces more - religion or families. Certainly his view that religion is the one sphere of society in which it's accepted without demur that parents have an absolute right over what their children believe is a bizarre one. Where does the fellow live? Parents attempt to exert control over almost every other aspect of their kids' lives as well. And parents almost invariably fail. Dawkins himself had an Anglican upbringing but began doubting the existence of God at the age of nine.
The total distinction often made between religion and other belief systems also strikes me as deeply disingenuous. All parents believe in something or other (often just as passionately as religious ones do), whether it's human rights or whether they worship in the temple of rising house prices, and most want to transmit their values to their kids. Dawkins says he flinches when he hears a child referred to as a Christian child rather than the child of Christian parents, for you wouldn't talk about a Marxist child, and how can a four-year-old choose their own religious belief?
He's wrong, and partly wrong. Talk to the American child of 1960s activists and they might well describe themselves as a "red diaper baby". And sit in a car with a bunch of 10-year-olds discussing reincarnation, as I did recently, and you'd have heard as passionate an engagement with moral, religious and philosophical issues as you'd come upon in any Muslim madrasa, Jewish yeshiva or other kind of seminary. The difference between indoctrination and education is whether you use religion to try to open up debate or close it down.
Atheist fundamentalists, I can't help thinking, see religion in their own image: they're curiously drawn to the fanaticism of other fundamentalists. And in the middle sit the rest of us, struggling to impart to our kids some values that go beyond the material, commercial or purely rational, though not necessarily incompatible with all those. I want my children to know about the long cultural tradition that they come from. And yes, if I'm honest (and though I recognise I might fail), I'd like them to continue this in some way.
In a report last month, Harriet Becher found scores of studies with the same findings: religious families were more stable and (to a small extent) happier, the parents more involved, nurturing and family-centred. We know kids have a hard time in chaotic families: perhaps, at its best, religion can provide a valuable structure as well as community support.
I've met enough religious crazies to know that there are a lot out there. But there are plenty of non-religious crazies too, and the idea that religious families are conservative, autocratic and dogmatic rather than humane, moral and questioning (or perhaps all six) - that's the Dawkins Delusion.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 68 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #82547 by BicycleRepairMan on October 26, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Another moron who hasnt read a word of Dawkins in her life. Did all these damn article writers ride the small bus to school, what the hell Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
3. Comment #82548 by 82abhilash on October 26, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Oh bother! How willing they are to twist what Dawkins says to their own selfish ends - exaggerate, distort and even lie.Whatever this sense for the transcendence or mysticism is that Sam Harris talks about, religion is a lousy way to attain in.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
4. Comment #82549 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Ah, the "This is not my god" line coupled with the "They're fundamentalists" bullshit.How very tiresome.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
5. Comment #82550 by notsobad on October 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm
"If you accept Dawkins's characterisation of religion, you'd probably agree. Religious parents, to him, are Mr Dogma and Mrs Bigot"He repeatedly says that this is not his view anywhere he can. Next time, try to actually read his opinions instead of opinions of a demagogue writing about him, which you became now too.
"Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender?"
This sentence illustartes how confused the author is (notice the double use of 'religion'). Not to mention the weasel wording 'we'..
Other Comments by notsobad
6. Comment #82552 by Monosilabbiq on October 26, 2007 at 5:16 pm
It is sad that the standards of journalism are being eroded. There can be no doubt that this article was not written by anyone who was awake while they read TGD.I would not wish to be dogmatic or harsh about this subject, but there are one or two things that are important. Every child must be taught that they have a choice about these things. And they must be taught that they MUST question everything that they are told by their teachers/elders. It is up there with don't accept sweeties from strangers - don't accept stuff that isn't rational from anyone. If you are open minded people will throw all sorts of rubbish in.
Everyone, at some time in their lives, should consider that they have a choice.
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
7. Comment #82558 by Frankus1122 on October 26, 2007 at 5:38 pm
ride the small bus to school
BRMan, you are wicked. You will go to hell for saying this and I will be there with you for laughing so hard.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
8. Comment #82560 by mmurray on October 26, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Dawkins says he flinches when he hears a child referred to as a Christian child rather than the child of Christian parents, for you wouldn't talk about a Marxist child, and how can a four-year-old choose their own religious belief?
He's wrong, and partly wrong. Talk to the American child of 1960s activists and they might well describe themselves as a "red diaper baby".
But that is exactly the point. Calling yourself a red diaper baby is a comment on your parents not on you. It sounds like `my parents were so left wing they used red diapers'. That doesn't imply that you were left wing because they were. Richard (I think) would be fine with that.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
9. Comment #82561 by Alkal on October 26, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I have always wondered at the "moderates".Its like this. My parents were atheists. SO I grew up atheist. They exposed me to different religions, in the sense, I was allowed to read what I wanted and even harbor thoughts of conversion- I wanted to be a Buddhist - and was not discouraged. Instead I was told to read up about it and the other faiths...
Now religious people, no matter how mild- do give their children the option NOT to practice their religion. But how many would allow them to be religious in a different faith- or to red up about it?
Its like saying, I am a white supremacist but I am not racist, and I imbibe values of love to my family... don't they ever wonder?
Other Comments by Alkal
10. Comment #82562 by goldmineguttd on October 26, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Nobody catch this?Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender?
Other Comments by goldmineguttd
11. Comment #82564 by atheist_peace on October 26, 2007 at 6:06 pm
"Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender?"Anybody else confused by this?
Edit: Looks like someone caught it before me ^
Other Comments by atheist_peace
12. Comment #82565 by mandrellian on October 26, 2007 at 6:11 pm
The point is, you either give your child a _choice_ about what to believe or you don't. If you don't give them that choice you're indoctrinating them, pure and simple.Quote: "Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender?"
Equally curious is the way you stereotype atheism with inappropriate words like "fundamentalist" and completely misrepresent Dawkins' work in a way that (I'm positive) you'd never abide with yours.
The key to a stable family is stable, loving parents and a stable environment. Belief in magic is utterly irrelevant.
Other Comments by mandrellian
13. Comment #82568 by JD Cherry on October 26, 2007 at 6:43 pm
What I would like very much to say is, that while I agree with the sentiment expressed in the aforesaid dialogue, and feel it an adequate catalyst for the discussion vis a vis children and child abuse, the author of this paragraph, himself a former atheist, has previously used the moniker "The Dawkins Delusion" for a recent literary work.- McG
Other Comments by JD Cherry
14. Comment #82569 by Janus on October 26, 2007 at 6:48 pm
LOL, Cherry. Very close to the real thing.Other Comments by Janus
15. Comment #82570 by joekoz451 on October 26, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion ...
Of course, no one stereotypes non-belief ...
Other Comments by joekoz451
16. Comment #82573 by JD Cherry on October 26, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I would have loved to have heard this discussion over the doctrine of reincarnation between "a car full of 10 year olds"."I WANT TO BE A PUPPY CUZ THEY'RE CUTE!"
Other Comments by JD Cherry
17. Comment #82578 by Theocrapcy on October 26, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I find it incredible that people like this simply refuse outright to even attempt to acknowledge the arguments in The God Delusion. Not only that but intentionally misrepresent them. Why even bother? What is the point of writing such inane piffle? Please, come up with some new arguments or at least stop diggging up old ones without even bothering to explore their history.
Boring, usual trash.
But this is what we have come to expect from the Guardian.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
18. Comment #82581 by Ducklike on October 26, 2007 at 7:53 pm
All I see in this article is someone describing the positive effects of a placebo. The only time a placebo works is when there's nothing wrong in the first place. Hey wait,... maybe that's the message here; religion is a placebo! Other Comments by Ducklike
19. Comment #82582 by Diacanu on October 26, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Y'know, journalism lately has sunk so low, I bet I could get an article published rather easily.But what's the point? I'd derive no pride or joy from it.
I often wonder how they do.
Guess it's all the check.
Guess I'm a crummy American/westerner. Dollar signs don't fuel my existence.
Ah well.
.
Other Comments by Diacanu
20. Comment #82585 by PrimeNumbers on October 26, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I bet she still had the foreskin cut off her boy's penis - that is, if one of her children is male.The rest ijust boils down to - "I'm nice and moderate, so that's not MY religion you're critical of." Yeah, right, we've heard that one before.
As for stable families - what tosh.
You all know what this dire level of journolism means? Religion is on the run. They can't win with theological crap like McGrath spouts - most people won't understand it. And they can't win with "That's not my religion" either.
Let's keep them running - let's see:
The Dogma Delusion
The Theology Delusion
The Moral Delusion
The Creation Delusion
and more....
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
21. Comment #82586 by FreeThink25 on October 26, 2007 at 8:20 pm
"In a report last month, Harriet Becher found scores of studies with the same findings: religious families were more stable and (to a small extent) happier, the parents more involved, nurturing and family-centred."More stable than what? And I'd love to see how these studies measured "happiness".
There goes that Atheist Fundamenalists again.....
Other Comments by FreeThink25
22. Comment #82588 by eric.malitz on October 26, 2007 at 8:29 pm
When she equates cultural traditions with religion I think she makes a key point- both can be equally bad, or at best, worthless. "Cultural tradition" needs to be examined more closely the same way religion is being examined. Why not start your kid out not with empty traditions but with mounds of built up knowledge? Theres no reason to give your kid a torah when you can give your kid a subscription to national geographic.Other Comments by eric.malitz
23. Comment #82594 by kraut on October 26, 2007 at 9:02 pm
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.htmljust a reminder about societal health and religion...
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-24.html
more source material as mentioned by shermer re: morality/ family values and religion.
" In 1934, Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious beliefs and three different measures of honesty. As religiosity increased, honesty decreased.
In 1950, Murray Ross conducted a survey among 2,000 associates of the YMCA and discovered that agnostics and atheists were more likely to express their willingness to aid the poor than those who rated themselves as deeply religious.
In 1969, sociologists Travis Hirschi and Rodney Stark reported no difference in the self-reported likelihood to commit crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.
In 1975, Ronald Smith, Gregory Wheeler, and Edward Diener discovered that college-aged students in religious schools were no less likely to cheat on a test than their atheist and agnostic counterparts in nonreligious schools.
In 1996 George Barna, a born-again Evangelical Christian, in his Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators, based on interviews with nearly 4,000 adult Americans, revealed: "Born again Christians continue to have a higher likelihood of getting divorced than do non-Christians." And: "Atheists are less likely to get divorced than are born-again Christians." Barna found that the current divorce rate for born-again Christians is 27 percent, while it is only 24 percent for non-Christians. In addition, the Baby Boomers — that generation often criticized for sexual indulgence and moral relativism — has a lower rate of divorce (34 percent) than the preceding generation (portrayed in popular culture as the idealized 1950's Ozzie and Harriet family), who hover at 37 percent.
Five years later, in a 2001 survey, Barna found that "33 percent of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce"
Other Comments by kraut
24. Comment #82608 by Gibsnag on October 27, 2007 at 12:22 am
It staggers me that people can continually stereotype Atheism and in doing so complain that Atheists are stereotyping them. If anything stereotyping of Atheism has become... a major new religious stereotype. Urgh...Other Comments by Gibsnag
25. Comment #82619 by GaryWM on October 27, 2007 at 2:16 am
This "atheist fundamentalists" nonsense is getting so old. When will they get it into their thick skulls, I'm not nor ever have been an atheist fundamentalist.I'm a militant atheist. :-)
Gary.
www.garymurning.co.uk
Other Comments by GaryWM
26. Comment #82623 by Acleron on October 27, 2007 at 2:52 am
'Atheist fundamentalists'???A fundamentalist has a blind unswerving belief that cannot be changed in the face of evidence contrary to their faith. How can that label be applied to a rational thinking being such as an atheist? The level of quality in journalism is lowered yet again.
Other Comments by Acleron
27. Comment #82626 by Duff on October 27, 2007 at 3:16 am
Isn't it cute how she says it ok for parents to teach their children things that are not "purely rational". Everyone knows a little ignorance and stupidness makes for a well balanced child.Other Comments by Duff
28. Comment #82630 by alexmzk on October 27, 2007 at 3:30 am
"I personally have very little religious belief. I love some religious liturgy in the same way that I love poetry, the music in a synagogue can do powerful things to me, and the enduring ritual I find moving."she's not religious, she's just self-consciously middle-class. she seems to be making sure her point of view is not fully one thing or t'other, with the result that she misconstrues Dawkins' original point as a threat to the wellbeing of her family.
Other Comments by alexmzk
29. Comment #82632 by BaronOchs on October 27, 2007 at 3:41 am
"In fact I'm not sure what Richard Dawkins traduces more - religion or families."
Terry Eagleton: "Jesus hung out with whores and social outcasts, was remarkably casual about sex, disapproved of the family (the suburban Dawkins is a trifle queasy about this)"
i uhhh he's a very naughty boy!
Other Comments by BaronOchs
30. Comment #82633 by Vinelectric on October 27, 2007 at 3:46 am
Anne Karpf on Dawkins:Where does the fellow live?
Believers living in the West tend to follow milder and more humanistic versions of their belief systems. This contrasts with the practises of faithfull communities in the world at large (especially the developing world/middle east). It's for this reason that Dawkins' views are very much relevant.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
31. Comment #82637 by drive1 on October 27, 2007 at 4:13 am
while I've encouraged my kids to experience a fair bit of religious observance, I personally have very little religious belief.
What an extraordinary confession. I immediately thought Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, with viral religious memes being deliberately introduced to defenceless children.
Extract from on-line description of the illness:
"The parent's or caregiver's own personal needs overcome his or her ability to see the child as a person with feelings and rights, possibly because the parent or caregiver may have grown up being treated like he or she wasn't a person with rights or feelings.
Other theories say that Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome is a cry for help on the part of the parent or caregiver, who may be experiencing anxiety or depression or have feelings of inadequacy as a parent or caregiver of a young child. Some may feel a sense of acknowledgement when the child's doctor confirms their caregiving skills. Or, the parent or caregiver may just enjoy the attention that the sick child - and, therefore, he or she - gets."
Just replace 'doctor' with 'priest' or 'peer group' in the above. The author is certainly getting the attention she craves. Who here would write, in a national newspaper, about their own children? It's just not cricket.
Other Comments by drive1
32. Comment #82638 by Vinelectric on October 27, 2007 at 4:19 am
On family ties:The author has a valid point here and I have consistently oberved that the more religious members of my family tend to encourage stronger family ties more often than the non religious.
However I also note that these values and traditions seem to be applicable only within the confines of one's community of faithful believers and not necessarily to the 'others'. Remember that even the Mafia gangsters seem to revere their family ties. This is where it all goes wrong. Despite its success in engendeing a well-knit subcommunity, religion also serves to drive rifts among society in general.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
33. Comment #82653 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 5:36 am
Acleron,I wouldn't call every atheist a rational being. Heck, many communists were and are atheists.
However, an atheist cannot be a fundamentalist because atheism only says 'I don't believe in gods' = 'I don't believe in something there is no evidence for', and it is not a belief system or a religion.
Other Comments by notsobad
34. Comment #82668 by cbelt on October 27, 2007 at 7:12 am
So... is she saying atheists should pretend to believe for the sake of the kids? I think it's better to set an example of honesty.So far, two years after abandoning evangelical Christian church and school (with my wife and three kids following close behind), I see only positive effects. Not counting the fact that the funamentalist in-laws won't speak to me. We are very close and happy.
Gotta go. My oldest wants to go to his halloween dance as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and we need to find some noodles.
Other Comments by cbelt
35. Comment #82704 by Alkal on October 27, 2007 at 9:21 am
Why aren't moderate religious people anti-fundamentalists? They are anti-non-religous folk more.Also what values in religion, that you should be good because the big sky fairy will be goo din return. That aint a value it is commerce.
Other Comments by Alkal
36. Comment #82718 by Eric Blair on October 27, 2007 at 10:28 am
Why do we keep seeing articles like this?Because RD et al. frame the debate in two ways that moderate Christians like Anne Kopf don't: that moderates "legitimize" fundamentalists, and that what separates different religions is trivial compared to their common acceptance of irrational faith.
On some abstract level these may be true. But in their own lives moderates find it absurd, and I can't say I blame them.
This weekend in my city a controversy has erupted over the decision of the RC Archbishop to "un-invite" a high profile speaker to a social justice conference because he's gay and outspoken (and, incidentally, Catholic). The man is now speaking at a United Church. This situation has not only highlighted doctrinal differences between the two churches but prompted many RCs to attack their Archbish.
A little in-house squabble ... perhaps. But hardly trivial to those involved. Nor will many renounce their faith because of this and become atheists. Most perplexing, the gay man at the centre remains a committed Catholic.
Disputes like this may be difficult for atheists to understand, and they may dismiss them as childish. But knowing some of the people involved, I can say they are anything but childish. They are reasonable adults, committed to similar social issues in the secular arena as humanists.
And so when people like Anne K., who may well fit somewhere in this mix of Christians, feels she is unfairly lumped together as a "fundie-symp" not only with bible-thumpers but with Koran and Torah wavers, small wonder she balks at the suggestion.
Finally, I think it's a little disingenuous to say articles like this completely misrepresent Dawkins et al. RD is hardly crystal clear on the difference between moderate and fundamentalists, and between different religions. In fact, his basic underlying point is that the acceptance of irrational faith is the problem, regardless of how this may be reflected in conscious dogma or actions. The religious "meme" is essentially the same.
For myself, I think there are lots of unspoken grey areas within any given church community, let alone denominations and entire religions – certainly enough to warrant different treatment from critics. Treatment of religion as monolithically bad and sociopathic, which these "debates" encourage, does little to help anyone.
Other Comments by Eric Blair
37. Comment #82719 by cowalker on October 27, 2007 at 10:34 am
I think Dawkins and Harris are correct that religious moderates enable religious fundamentalists. But I also think that this cynical use of religion to provide structure and aesthetic pleasure acts like a sort of vaccination against committed religious belief. The lukewarm observance makes religion feel boring and beside the point. So the kids are likely to take the first opportunity to bail. If being religious doesn't make a difference in how you live your life, then it's not a map or a motor--it's baggage.Other Comments by cowalker
38. Comment #82723 by Bonzai on October 27, 2007 at 10:57 am
I agree with Eric Blair totally.I always find the thesis that "religious moderates enable fundamentalists" rather weak. It makes sense only if one looks at religion exclusively as epistemology. But to most believers religion is more than just "bad science" and as a social phenomenon religion is a lot more complex than whether God exists.
Believing God exists in and of itself tells us nothing about where a person stands on concrete issues. Even though I am a very staunch atheist but I find myself agreeing with liberal Christians on a wide range of issues on economical justice. On the other hand there are "free market" worshiping right wing atheists whose economical beliefs are not so different from evangelical Christians.
I don't seek my allies and friends simply based on their answers to the question "does God exists". Nor do most moderate religious people. It is wrong to assume that all religious people close rank against atheists on all issues simply because they all believe in God. Many moderate religionists fight on the side of Dawkins for evolution. From a purely philosophical perspective, the answer to the question whether God exists is probably of fundamental importance, but it is not enough of a wedge issue on most situations important in real life.
A simple, canned slogan often cited here is "religion is harmful because it is irrational" and the implication is that at the most fundamental level moderates and fundamentalists are equally irrational because they all believe in God. Aside from a total disregard of nuances an unspoken assumption is that rationality is in itself a virtue. This is a value judgment which cannot be verified empirically or argue logically, it is an axiom that is not at all intuitively obvious. It is probably "rational" to be a selfish sob and a prick if you know you can get away with it . But is it "good"?
Religion is not the only kind of irrationality. No one is 100% rational, we all have our own irrational hang ups, this is what makes us different from machines. I would venture to say that most of what motivate us at the deepest level are "irrational". Human sentiments and passions are rarely "rational" from a simplistic mechanical model of rationality. Philosophers and psychologists may be able to tell us more.
Irrationality can have different effects on one's life depending on the concrete context. It may be life affirming,--Don Quixote comes to mind,--neutral or harmful,--again Don Quixote.
Many atheists come from a science background it is understandable that they tend to engage religion at the factual level, but it is a very tunneled vision attack if we ignore the social, psychological and anthropological dimension of it. I think Scott Atran made some very insightful point, but predictably dismissed here by people who are only able to see things in a science vs non science perspective.
Other Comments by Bonzai
39. Comment #82730 by JemyM on October 27, 2007 at 11:35 am
A study of certain tribes have shown that in a culture when sex is not taboo, things like child abuse, rebelling teenagers and wifebeating simply goes away. Christianity is unnatural and the children pays for it. Other Comments by JemyM
40. Comment #82733 by Lauregon on October 27, 2007 at 11:53 am
Religion is not the only kind of irrationality. No one is 100% rational, we all have our own irrational hang ups - Bonzai
But religion is the irrationality that claims a transcendent, almighty, all-powerful, omniscient "God" as the author of one's beliefs and morals, and religion is the one irrationality that is culturally supposed to remain exempt from question and public discussion. This prohibition is one way in which religious moderates enable fundamental- ism. My own experience of a lifetime among believers suggests that if it came down to having to choose between fundamentalism and atheism, moderate religionists would finally choose fundamentalism---however reluctantly---if for no other reason than from fear of rampant immorality in the absence of "God," which in itself suggests that the link between fundamentalism and moderate belief is stronger than may seem apparent on the surface.
Other Comments by Lauregon
41. Comment #82736 by Bonzai on October 27, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Lauregon,My own experience of a lifetime among believers suggests that if it came down to having to choose between fundamentalism and atheism, moderate religionists would finally choose fundamentalism---however reluctantly---if for no other reason than from fear of rampant immorality in the absence of "God," which in itself suggests that the link between fundamentalism and moderate belief is stronger than may seem apparent on the surface.
You may be right if a choice has to be made on some abstract, philosophical level. But on a practical level,--which is all I care,--it is clearly untrue. Consider just one example close to Richard's heart, the teaching of creationism in school. Many devout mainstream Christians,-- probably the majority, --take the side of evolution. So when they do have to make a choice between fundamentalists of their own faiths and atheists many do ally with atheists. I think the same would be true for other issues of true importance like separation of Church and state.
Other Comments by Bonzai
42. Comment #82740 by Lauregon on October 27, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Consider just one example close to Richard's heart, the teaching of creationism in school. Many devout mainstream Christians,-- probably the majority, --take the side of evolution. So when they do have to make a choice between fundamentalists of their own faiths and atheists many do ally with atheists. I think the same would be true for other issues of true importance like separation of Church and state. - Bonzai
On-line, I know of an avowedly mainstream evangelical Christian, a retired vocational school teacher, who claims to be politically liberal, supports the teaching of evolution in public schools, believes in the Second Coming, supports separation of church and state, but at the same time fervently believes "with all [his] heart and soul" that evolution took place for millions of years, and then, some 6,000 years ago, "God" wiped those early creatures out and started over and created Adam and Eve and all the earth's life forms as they appear today. By his own admission, he constructed this scenario as a means of maintaining his faith in biblical inerrancy while being modernist and accepting evolution. (In addition, this true believer can be counted on to issue at least slightly veiled threats of eternal punishment to come whenever non-belief is mentioned). I suppose it's possible that such cognitive dissonance may be an interim condition that may fade away in time, but given the current statistics of evangelical believers in creationism and the Second Coming in the US (reportedly around 80%), I think there's serious reason to worry about the effects of religion on human cognition and the future of America.
Other Comments by Lauregon
43. Comment #82752 by pantsandboots on October 27, 2007 at 1:19 pm
She's confusing faith with religion. If she DOESN'T follow religious dogma to the letter, then it's not her religion and all she has is personal faith. And I hardly think it's faith in a supernatural deity that holds the family together; if you go back over those studies, you're more likely to find them from a cultural or economic background that encourages or enables a stable family structure.
Other Comments by pantsandboots
44. Comment #82772 by Veronique on October 27, 2007 at 2:24 pm
32. Comment #82638 by VinelectricMaybe the family ties so encouraged by religious families are cloying and based on their 'faith'. The children remain children and rational, critical thought and respect for others doesn't develop past the 'faith based' relationships. Maybe the children only ever see their parents as parents and vice versa.
Maybe the ties that develop in families without that 'faith' are based on respect, interaction, questioning and the ultimate development of friendship as children grow into adults. Maybe the adult children see their parents as people in their own right and vice versa.
That's the difference as I perceive it. So no, I don't think the author of this article has a valid point at all.
Looking back at what kraut posted are some interesting studies:-).
Good morning all:-)
V
Other Comments by Veronique
45. Comment #82780 by frankie1958 on October 27, 2007 at 2:50 pm
AnneIt's lovely that you make an argument for families but essentially what you are saying is that living in Smallville is better than living in the real world. I cannot accept that telling children lies about the world is better for humanity in the long run than keeping an open mind and exploring all possibilities.
An ethical life need not be based on religious text. As an exercise, what would you do if god were not in the picture. My guess is not much different if you are a moral person to begin with. When you impart your ideas to your kids, you had these ideas all ready and god plays no part.
You say 'Atheist fundamentalists, I can't help thinking, see religion in their own image: they're curiously drawn to the fanaticism of other fundamentalists. And in the middle sit the rest of us, struggling to impart to our kids some values that go beyond the material, commercial or purely rational, though not necessarily incompatible with all those. I want my children to know about the long cultural tradition that they come from. And yes, if I'm honest (and though I recognise I might fail), I'd like them to continue this in some way.'
Imparting to children the long cultural tradition is fine so long as it is based in reality and not wishful thinking. A moral and ethical life can be lived without religion as its bolster. In fact, it can be lived much fuller and more honestly than the belief in supernatural things can ever do.
Other Comments by frankie1958
46. Comment #82833 by Russell Blackford on October 28, 2007 at 1:52 am
It's a stupid article. I think that much religion is absurd, authoritarian, and cruel - not because I'm projecting my own absurd, authoritarian, and cruel tendencies but simply because I've seen a lot of absurd, authoritarian, cruel religion with my own eyes.I agree with Bonzai and others that the whole "moderates enable fanatics" trope is an embarrassment - I've never felt especially comfortable with it. The truth of the matter is that lots of people enable fanatics, and lots of people enable rather silly moderates. The enablers are often atheists.
We must all stop thinking of faith as a virtue or giving the impression that we do so. While we're on the job, we can stop pretending that humility, piety, sexual modesty, sexual jealousy, self-abnegation, submissiveness to religious authority, and chastity are virtues. These things are all vices (though some do have equivalent virtues such as having a proper and not obnoxious degree of pride, being capable of rational deferment of pleasures, possessing genuine self-discipline, being loyal and considerate to your lovers, etc). No one could consider the religious virtues to be real ones without childhood exposure to religious claptrap.
But all that said, the moderate or liberal religionists are not fanatics; some of them are on our side in important respects; they do not necessarily enable fanatics; and even when they do they have company from atheists who are overly respectful of religious and cultural traditions.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
47. Comment #82853 by monoape on October 28, 2007 at 3:26 am
[reposted because my first attempt didn't show up - there's some flaky code behind this website]Hell and damnation! Drivel like this spoils my day when I read it in (supposedly) quality press. Opinions are formed and the zeitgeist is shaped by our papers, and they're doing us all a disservice by giving moderate, wishy washy religious apologists column inches.
Not only is she dishonest in completely misrepresenting RD, she's merrily allowing her own children to be indoctrinated even though she says that she has "very little religious belief". How does that last one work? You either believe the whole whopper of a fairytale or you don't? 'A little religious' seems very much like being 'a little pregnant'. These 'a la carte' happy clappers get on my tits.
I hope others will join me and write directly to The Guardian in the hope that their editorial team will stop allowing tabloid-quality junk like this to appear on their pages. Send to letters@guardian.co.uk (and cc the silly woman - anne.karpf@guardian.co.uk).
Tally ho!
Other Comments by monoape
48. Comment #82860 by an_ant_under_a_penny on October 28, 2007 at 4:03 am
And sit in a car with a bunch of 10-year-olds discussing reincarnation, as I did recently, and you'd have heard as passionate an engagement with moral, religious and philosophical issues as you'd come upon in any Muslim madrasa, Jewish yeshiva or other kind of seminary.I've always suspected that what I would get to hear in a madrasa etc. would sound very much like a bunch of 10-year-olds having an argument. ;)
Other Comments by an_ant_under_a_penny
49. Comment #82914 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 8:39 am
It's another one of those, "that's not *my* religion". To answer each and every one of the sects of Christendom would take a library of books.It's also another one of those, "look at the *good* the Christian religion has done". As someone else said, it's a good placebo but a placebo only works because there is nothing wrong to start with.
Other Comments by Corky
50. Comment #82917 by NJS on October 28, 2007 at 8:47 am
If those 10 years olds in the car were discussing the pros and cons of Marxism and capitalism "passionately" would it therefore be okay to give them the vote after labelling them according to their views?Other Comments by NJS
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests""
Richard Dawkins
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."
Richard Dawkins
"Thus the creationist's favourite question "What is the use of half an eye?" Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye..."
Richard Dawkins
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins
"The habit of religion is oppressive, an easy way out of thought."
Peter Ustinov
Other Recommended Reading
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Kluge
Gary Marcus
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #82543 by Janus on October 26, 2007 at 4:42 pm
No honey, the difference between education and indoctrination is that the former is the teaching of values and of facts, while the latter is the teaching of lies.
Other Comments by Janus