Thoughts and questions from God Delusion

[Mister Agenda]

Hello fellow thinkers,

I'm new; I posted an intro in that section, read that if you want to know my deal. Hi and thanks again for the welcome messages.

To which I add my welcome.

So, I'm a Christian reading The God Delusion with an open mind and considering the rational merit of atheism. My experience with "out" atheists is limited, and Dawkins is a refreshing surprise. I'm sure there are more like him out there, I just haven't met you yet. (I hope to).

Sorry to hear it.

Most atheists I've met are either over-compensating intellectuals with attitudes like, "I'm smarter than you, just look at my dynamic vocabulary. Look at it!"; or sci-fi/fantasy fans who actually believe in elves (or klingons or whatever).

Goes to show what different circles people can run in. I had not ever previously heard of an atheist who actually believes in elves (or Klingons or whatever). Fair cop on the over-compensating intellectuals though, I guess they're (we're?) ubiquitous.

Not that this is a bad thing necessarily; to each his own has been my approach. And of course my sample is very small; as a Christian most of my friends and family are either theists or agnostics.

Understandable. Although you might be surprised at some of them being atheist without advertising it. I've been.

And I know that some would say that believing in elves is much more sane than believing in Yahweh or Jesus Christ, and frankly I wouldn't argue that point.

I can't really argue it either.

I would ask though, what experience one has had with elves, not as a way to prove or disprove anything, but to understand the basis for such a belief.

I suspect you've come to the wrong place for inside information on this phenomenon.

And as such I don't think that all beliefs are equally reasonable to hold. For example, if one's experience of elves is limited to reading Tolkien and imagining them - which I love to do - I would posit that this is a less reasonable basis for believing they exist in our universe than say, praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

Surprising that didn't make the medical literature. Without that, it's just a cool story, bro.

Of course this is all subjective and will not necessarily convince anyone, but that's my point. In the end we all have to decide this question for ourselves, no?

Yep.

So here's something from Dawkins: He says raising children in a religion is tantamount to child abuse and possibly worse than sexual abuse. This is shocking to fathom, but he is also surprisingly civil and even charitable, which effectively diffuses the affective sparks that would otherwise fly at such extreme statements. Furthermore, I understand his passion, and if he is right that there is no God, then indeed religious parents like myself are arguably evil - at the very least we are really dissing our kids!

Although Dawkins may have a point, and there are some who would agree with his assessment, I think most of us would say he goes a little too far in this particular instance. Parents are only able to raise their children the best they know how, and there isn't an palatable alternative to that, which is why government only intervenes in cases where the child's health is at risk. If it were up to me, parents wouldn't be allowed to tell children they're stupid, but what are you going to do?

But of course that is the question in the first place (does God exist), and without settling it with certainty (not just some vague probability - how is the probability of God's existence calculated, exactly?), forcing children to be raised by an atheist state is no different than the (apparently powerful and poised to take over the country) American Christian fundamentalists forcing their religion on the kids of atheist parents.

Forcing children in general to be raised by any state is not desireable.

And though this is really a side issue, it elicits the further question of who is going to decide what is best for children, if not their parents? A government panel of expert scientists and psychologists? How will these people be chosen, and by whom? And how will these thought-police enforce their edicts? How will they keep Catholic parents from saying anything at all to their kids that could be construed as religious indoctrination? Must the parents go to mass in secret and tell their kids they're going to a weekly science club instead? In practice wouldn't it really be necessary to take the kids away from the parents completely, and raise them in properly atheistic institutions (or foster homes with atheist parents)?

Excellent job of summarizing why the idea should never be put into practice.

And if so, how is this different from Dawkins' story of the Jewish boy who was taken from his parents because he was baptized by a Catholic nurse, and raised (by people other than his parents) as a Catholic?

In Dawkins' scenario (IIRC, it's been several years since I read the book), the child would not be indoctrinated into atheism, rather wouldn't be pressured to make any profession until an adult.

Dawkins' greatest and most passionate objection to this (rightly so, IMO) was that the boy was taken from his parents, which was a cause of great trauma and suffering to them all. (He of course had no sympathy for the religious freedom of the Jewish parents, who were just as stupid and superstitious as their Catholic counterparts). And, finally, if (a utopian, atheistic) society is not willing to "kidnap" (as Dawkins put it of the Jewish boy) the children of theists of all stripes in order to spare them the abuse of being raised in religious families, why even raise the point that it is an injustice in the first place?

Venting, I suppose.

My guess is that it is a rhetorical device, and not a serious proposition. As such it may have some shock value; it may cause some to think more about the nature of religion and the importance of the question of the existence of god(s). This would be good inasmuch as this is a "big question" that fundamentally shapes a society, but that many people are probably content not to consider. Not that they don't have an opinion, it's just unexamined. OTOH, it can be very bad inasmuch as people who aren't too bright start to parrot Dawkins (probably misunderstanding him) and campaign for Social Services to prosecute religious parents for child abuse and take children out of such homes. (Not the least of the issues is where to put them, who would raise them, and who would pay for raising them; and this is before we even get into the severe cruelty of such a thing, especially in the eyes of a young child who knows nothing of philosophy or theology and just wants his or her mommy and daddy.)

If I run into any such, I'll be sure to set them straight.

I realize that is rambly. I teach for a living; I basically get paid to ramble. Thanks for your patience. For now, I shall relent!

We've seen much worse, and in comparison you are a ray of clarity and sunshine. Welcome again.