RE: Thoughts and questions from God Delusion
September 4, 2012 at 11:05 pm
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2012 at 11:09 pm by Cyberman.)
I hope you'll forgive me that, again, I'm not in the right frame of mind to actually go thorugh your response in the detail it deserves but I fully intend to give it my best shot when I'm feeling more capable. Now...
I think you'd be surprised at just how many people who do hold opinions similar to Richard Dawkins re: religious indoctrination of children, or the amalgamation you gave regarding Mother Teresa - though I'd be very surprised to see it expressed in quite that fashion - anyway, you'd be very surprised how many of us are actually very nice people in real life. We may hold opinions that at first blush appear shocking to you, possibly because you may mot have come across them on that from or even at all, but that's all that divides us when push comes to shove.
Actually, when it comes to the woman named Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu who went on to become the self-styled Mother Teresa, I'm afraid one of us is in for some shocking disillusionment if you think she was a champion of human dignity. I'd better leave the details until a better time, though for now I'd recommend taking a look at the three-part video Hell's Angel by Christopher Hitchens. I can imagine various parts of your lower intestines just flinched when you saw that name but he devoted a good part of his time to unmasking what he described as "a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud" and was interviewed, briefly, by the Vatican as a 'doubter' over the farcically fake miracle that was attested as part of her beatification.
As to Prof Dawkins and the quotes about child abuse (and I realise I'm addressing these in reverse order, of sorts): as you will note from the quotes I gave from the book we are using, there are only two instances when the comparison is drawn between religious indoctrination and child abuse. One was an off-the-cuff remark after a lecture, while the other was a question to psychologist and cult survivor Jill Mytton (full fifty-minute interview here - unfortunately Channel 4 are being arsey again and so I can't watch it in this country unless I do it via a proxy. So I hope the video hasn't been removed or anything - I'd hate to give out false information on purpose).
Even granted the 'shocking' nature of such opinion, I don't think there can much of case made that such indoctrination virtually (and in many case actually) from the cradle doesn't leave scars. Yes, there is all the redemption and the grace and all that fluffy stuff, but as you agreed there is also the threat of hell for unbelievers; which can be a potent one but most especially in a child's most impressionable and formative years. Remember also that even if that child is convinced s/he is going to heaven, that conviction comes with the knowledge that other people whom s/he loves might end up in hellfire, including mummy and daddy. How can that not leave scars?
To put it into perspective: you clearly take issue with the opinion that raising a child Catholic can be so damaging. That's fine, that's a topic worth debating. How would you feel if the word "Catholic" was replaced by the word "Muslim"? Or "Hindu"? Or any of the thousands of religions and sects of those religions practised in the world at this moment?
I think another large part of the problem is one of labelling a child as "Catholic", or "Protestant" or indeed as anything other than a child. As I understand it, he was trying to emphasise that there can no more be a "Catholic" child than, for instance, a "Republican" child, or a "postman" child; all are equally ridiculous. To quote Prof Dawkins again, "Even without physical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice persists to this day, almost entirely unquestioned."
Nope - that's a Stimbo original, though I did steal heavily from Don Quixote. Glad you like it.
I think you may benefit from a little help with your english, if you'll indulge me. "Cheers" is a term we generally reserve either as a toast when raising a glass of falling-down water or a pint of the good brown stuff to each other, or else as a synonym for "thanks". I can't tell from context if you were going for either meaning or something else entirely.
On a related note, I've come across people who think that "cheerio" is just a jollier way of saying "cheers", when in fact it actually means "goodbye".
I think you'd be surprised at just how many people who do hold opinions similar to Richard Dawkins re: religious indoctrination of children, or the amalgamation you gave regarding Mother Teresa - though I'd be very surprised to see it expressed in quite that fashion - anyway, you'd be very surprised how many of us are actually very nice people in real life. We may hold opinions that at first blush appear shocking to you, possibly because you may mot have come across them on that from or even at all, but that's all that divides us when push comes to shove.
Actually, when it comes to the woman named Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu who went on to become the self-styled Mother Teresa, I'm afraid one of us is in for some shocking disillusionment if you think she was a champion of human dignity. I'd better leave the details until a better time, though for now I'd recommend taking a look at the three-part video Hell's Angel by Christopher Hitchens. I can imagine various parts of your lower intestines just flinched when you saw that name but he devoted a good part of his time to unmasking what he described as "a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud" and was interviewed, briefly, by the Vatican as a 'doubter' over the farcically fake miracle that was attested as part of her beatification.
As to Prof Dawkins and the quotes about child abuse (and I realise I'm addressing these in reverse order, of sorts): as you will note from the quotes I gave from the book we are using, there are only two instances when the comparison is drawn between religious indoctrination and child abuse. One was an off-the-cuff remark after a lecture, while the other was a question to psychologist and cult survivor Jill Mytton (full fifty-minute interview here - unfortunately Channel 4 are being arsey again and so I can't watch it in this country unless I do it via a proxy. So I hope the video hasn't been removed or anything - I'd hate to give out false information on purpose).
Even granted the 'shocking' nature of such opinion, I don't think there can much of case made that such indoctrination virtually (and in many case actually) from the cradle doesn't leave scars. Yes, there is all the redemption and the grace and all that fluffy stuff, but as you agreed there is also the threat of hell for unbelievers; which can be a potent one but most especially in a child's most impressionable and formative years. Remember also that even if that child is convinced s/he is going to heaven, that conviction comes with the knowledge that other people whom s/he loves might end up in hellfire, including mummy and daddy. How can that not leave scars?
The God Delusion Wrote:...if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell.
To put it into perspective: you clearly take issue with the opinion that raising a child Catholic can be so damaging. That's fine, that's a topic worth debating. How would you feel if the word "Catholic" was replaced by the word "Muslim"? Or "Hindu"? Or any of the thousands of religions and sects of those religions practised in the world at this moment?
I think another large part of the problem is one of labelling a child as "Catholic", or "Protestant" or indeed as anything other than a child. As I understand it, he was trying to emphasise that there can no more be a "Catholic" child than, for instance, a "Republican" child, or a "postman" child; all are equally ridiculous. To quote Prof Dawkins again, "Even without physical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice persists to this day, almost entirely unquestioned."
(September 4, 2012 at 10:13 pm)jacklegger Wrote: I love that turn of phrase, "lest we tilt at men of straw". Is that Shakespeare? Google failed me so I must reveal my ignorance.
Nope - that's a Stimbo original, though I did steal heavily from Don Quixote. Glad you like it.
(September 4, 2012 at 7:18 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(September 4, 2012 at 7:11 pm)greneknight Wrote: but they'll get there in time.Cheers!
(I was going to write "amen", but since you're brit, this sounded better)
Until that happens, we just have to keep writing the same things over and over again.
I think you may benefit from a little help with your english, if you'll indulge me. "Cheers" is a term we generally reserve either as a toast when raising a glass of falling-down water or a pint of the good brown stuff to each other, or else as a synonym for "thanks". I can't tell from context if you were going for either meaning or something else entirely.
On a related note, I've come across people who think that "cheerio" is just a jollier way of saying "cheers", when in fact it actually means "goodbye".
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
