Dawkins on The Panel

Myksyk

Check out YouTube for Dawkins recent appearance. You could tell O'Briain is a fan of sorts. Just search 'dawkins panel' and it should pop up for you.

davros

O'Briain doesn't hide the fact that he studied science at UCD and he still seems enthused by it, judging by his comments on The Panel and QI.

Likewise, Aoibhinn Ni Shúilleabháin was happy to drop into the conversation that she worked at CERN.

A possible couple of speakers there for the ISS?

It's great when Brian May pops up on The Sky at Night too. Suddenly it seems OK to be scientifically literate.

Tim Robbins

davros wrote:

O'Briain doesn't hide the fact that he studied science at UCD and he still seems enthused by it, judging by his comments on The Panel and QI.

Likewise, Aoibhinn Ni Shúilleabháin was happy to drop into the conversation that she worked at CERN.

A possible couple of speakers there for the ISS?

It's great when Brian May pops up on The Sky at Night too. Suddenly it seems OK to be scientifically literate.

I don't think Dawkins is a good Scientist he loves sensationalism a bit too much.
Has he published any good papers in the last ten years? I don't know myself.

5uspect

Well his tenure is for the Public understanding of Science so most of his published work will be in book form or through his column in The Guardian newspaper. A quick google scholar search however for the last ten years suggests that he is indeed very active with both papers and books. As a scientist he is very highly regarded also.

To be sensationalist he must make wild claims that he cannot back up, he does not do this, although the marketing of his new book for Christmas is indeed quite aggressive. To label someone as a bad scientist and an attention seeker is not the best way to criticize his arguments when you don't like what he is saying.

Myksyk

The label 'sensationalist' is interesting. Often the urge to label thus is based on the nature of the idea itself not on the nature of its expression. Unfortunately, it is still almost outrageous to express publicly the idea that there is no such thing as God, particularly if you do so energetically and purposefully. In reality, one would think that it should be perceived as no more sensationalist than the active promotion of the idea that there is a God.

5uspect

Thats my problem, I would rather people show the faults in Dawkins argument rather than simply label him a sensationalist fundamentalist and ignore the problem.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

Thats my problem, I would rather people show the faults in Dawkins argument rather than simply label him a sensationalist fundamentalist and ignore the problem.

Do you prefer people find faults with actual arguments in a tabloid newspaper or are they allowed just to call it sensationalist journalism? Or what about it they say Fahrenheight 9-11 is sensationalist or should someone actually have to detail the poor arguments before calling it sensationalist?

I think saying baptizing your child is child abuse is sensationalist and that you are infecting them with your virus if you bring them to mass growing up is also sensationalist rhetoric. I'm not sure if you do, but if you don't we'll never agree.

robindch

> saying baptizing your child is child abuse is sensationalist

Who said that?

Goodshape

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do you prefer people find faults with actual arguments in a tabloid newspaper or are they allowed just to call it sensationalist journalism? Or what about it they say Fahrenheight 9-11 is sensationalist or should someone actually have to detail the poor arguments before calling it sensationalist?

I think saying baptizing your child is child abuse is sensationalist and that you are infecting them with your virus if you bring them to mass growing up is also sensationalist rhetoric. I'm not sure if you do, but if you don't we'll never agree.

It's a moot point. Voicing uncommonly held viewpoints, particularly with regards religion, will always provoke response and it's very easy to label it all 'sensationalist' without having to address any of the actual points of the argument itself.

5uspect

Obviously every argument should be taken on its merits. Thats why we're here to discuss things. Look at the creationist thread, they've been heard out (at considerable length) and their arguments picked apart and found to be utter nonsense. When tabloid newspapers make claims that they cannot back up they are often promptly sued, they are known to make exaggerated claims which ignore and simplify many of the facts and we can be biased towards their reporting.

Why to you consider the child abuse argument sensationalist? Its counter intuitive and radical in a world dominated by religious belief but so too was the idea of a woman voting a century ago or gay rights. Telling impressionable children that god is an unquestionable fact is wrong. Whats wrong with holding off indoctrination until children are old enough to decide for themselves?

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

Obviously every argument should be taken on its merits. Thats why we're here to discuss things. Look at the creationist thread, they've been heard out (at considerable length) and their arguments picked apart and found to be utter nonsense. When tabloid newspapers make claims that they cannot back up they are often promptly sued, they are known to make exaggerated claims which ignore and simplify many of the facts and we can be biased towards their reporting.

Why to you consider the child abuse argument sensationalist? Its counter intuitive and radical in a world dominated by religious belief but so too was the idea of a woman voting a century ago or gay rights. Telling impressionable children that god is an unquestionable fact is wrong. Whats wrong with holding off indoctrination until children are old enough to decide for themselves?

You're straw man-ing. There is a major difference in bringing up a child with 'God is an unquestionable fact' and bringing them participating in elements of religious tradition or baptizing them.
Many theists questions many aspects of their faith, they are not all fundamentalists believe it or not.
Do you consider telling a child about Santa child abuse?
Abuse is a very strong word. It is usually associating with something very upsetting and disturbing. I think you should differentiate between serious human problems and matters of intellectual debate that are ultimately personnel and subjective.

If you think this is Child abuse do you think people who engage in such abuse should be put in jail?
Or do you not consider child abuse serious?

5uspect

Do you you believe in Santa? Probably not. You know that when you tell your kids about Santa they accept that its true because they receive presents. Most kids get over the end of Santa's visits quite quickly and are often relieved that their parents are actually quite caring to be so generous to them.

However this is very different to god. God doesn't manifest himself in our parents actions once a year. The god - santa analogy is a total strawman. We all accept that santa is made up most people think god is real. Kids make believe all the time, its part of growing up. God requires that the highest authorities in the land endorse such an idea as fact worthy enough for inclusion in our constitution and for our worship and worthy of our fear.

Including a child in a ritual that they probably won't understand is much different than telling them, with authority, that there is a supreme god and there are these places called heaven and hell. You are of course correct in saying this. But this is not the point. The point is that there are many ceremonies and rituals that a child can be part of that have nothing to do with god or religion. Graduations, secular weddings, Halloween and for the most part Christmas. My problem is with telling children that we do this to make god happy because we are sinners rather than saying that this is just a nice thing to do with friends and neighbours. There is a clear difference here.

Abuse is a very apt word as it makes children question their actions in ways that limit their growth. It instills fear into them to enforce morals rather than making them develop their morals based on reason and compassion for others. It is like spanking a child without telling it what they have done wrong before they have even done anything wrong.

So should parents be locked up for passing on their religious ideas to their children? No because it would only be punishing the abused. I think that those who abuse the role of religious education in schools by pushing their own religion at the expense of impartial comparative religious education should be made accountable however.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

Abuse is a very strong word. It is usually associating with something very upsetting and disturbing. I think you should differentiate between serious human problems and matters of intellectual debate that are ultimately personnel and subjective.
...
Or do you not consider child abuse serious?

OK then, consider a Satanic cult, into which the children of members are inducted at early ages. Let's imagine that the children are not sexually or physically abused, but are subjected to satanic rituals, blood, chants, fasting, eating strange foods, masks, costumes, threats about the power of Satan, late night trips into the forest etc.

There's a series of planned and systematic rituals for each child to go through at certain ages and plenty of horror stories about what can happen to them if they displease the Dark Lord. Again, for the purposes of this 'Straw Man', presume no actual sexual of physical abuse takes place

Now, would YOU consider that child abuse (serious or not)?

Tim Robbins

pH wrote:

OK then, consider a Satanic cult, into which the children of members are inducted at early ages. Let's imagine that the children are not sexually or physically abused, but are subjected to satanic rituals, blood, chants, fasting, eating strange foods, masks, costumes, threats about the power of Satan, late night trips into the forest etc.

There's a series of planned and systematic rituals for each child to go through at certain ages and plenty of horror stories about what can happen to them if they displease the Dark Lord. Again, for the purposes of this 'Straw Man', presume no actual sexual of physical abuse takes place

Now, would YOU consider that child abuse (serious or not)?

Do you consider watching WWE with your kids wacthing the Rock (who will reture) laying the smackdown and not actually pointing out it's all acting child abuse?

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do you consider watching WWE with your kids wacthing the Rock (who will reture) laying the smackdown and not actually pointing out it's all acting child abuse?

I take it from this that you don't consider inducting children into a Satanic cult child abuse any more than a mainstream church, and consider both equivalent to watching make believe on the TV.

At least you are consistent, I believe you are wrong, but at least you are not hypocritical.

Tim Robbins

pH wrote:

I take it from this that you don't consider inducting children into a Satanic cult child abuse any more than a mainstream church, and consider both equivalent to watching make believe on the TV.

At least you are consistent, I believe you are wrong, but at least you are not hypocritical.

No of course I differentiate. The "abuse" is determined by the side effect, not by what you are saying that is not verfiable by science.
If you bring them up with religious traditions, it is irrelevant as they will make up their own mind anyway, and will have some appreciation for what religion and faith is about. They will be able to make an informed decision.
If you bring them up in a satanic cult you will scare the crap out of them. It is completly different. Most satantic cults scare most adults so I think it is fair to say this is an abuse of children.

Going to mass / church does not scare most adults.They are either simple interested or disinterested in this tradition / belief.

Bringing a child up is simple a chance for the kid to sample it and help them make an informed decision as to what they prefer. In the same way as educating a kid in Science etc. will also will help them form an understanding of the world. Bringing up a kid with religion is also a chance to educate kids about a moral framework. I appreciate their are other ways to do this, but it is a lot easier for a kid to understand the Prodigol Son than it is to Plato's The Republic.

Do you differentiate betweeen anything that is told to a child that cannot be verified by Science?
Is anything that cannot be verified by Science that is told to child abuse?

Santa, the Tooth fairy, WWE?

Kids have an imagination, they will probably think there is a God even if you tell them there isn't.
Kids / teenagers are also contraian. If you tell them they are not allowed to go to Church or they are stupid if they go, they will probably go just to annoy you.

pH

This is not a matter of scaring children, or can you not see that?

Let me ask the question directly:

Can you imagine any set of teachings or indoctrination that a group of adults (including parents) could subject children to that you would consider to be abuse. Let's also say that this indoctrination contains no actual physical or sexual abuse nor any 'scariness'.

If you cannot imagine any such indoctrination then fine, you believe that nothing taught or instilled in children could be considered abuse.

If however you could imagine an indoctrination that you would consider abuse then explain how this differs from religious indoctrination of children.

Tim Robbins

pH wrote:

This is not a matter of scaring children, or can you not see that?

Let me ask the question directly:

Can you imagine any set of teachings or indoctrination that a group of adults (including parents) could subject children to that you would consider to be abuse. Let's also say that this indoctrination contains no actual physical or sexual abuse nor any 'scariness'.

If you cannot imagine any such indoctrination then fine, you believe that nothing taught or instilled in children could be considered abuse.

If however you could imagine an indoctrination that you would consider abuse then explain how this differs from religious indoctrination of children.

If you withdraw their free will or the ability to decide for themselves and you don't have a good reason then that's the form of abuse. Bringing them to a Church is helping them to make a choice (theism or atheism) not forcing them to make a particular choice (you must be a theist) - it is not abuse. It doesn't damage them physically, I'm pretty sure it doesn't damage them emotionally, it's just education not abuse.

Goodshape

Tim Robbins wrote:

Santa, the Tooth fairy, WWE?

We're not asked to believe (or fear) in these things as we are the Word of God.

Goodshape

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you withdraw their free will or the ability to decide for themselves and you don't have a good reason then that's the form of abuse. Bringing them to a Church is helping them to make a choice (theism or atheism) not forcing them to make a particular choice (you must be a theist) - it is not abuse. It doesn't damage them physically, I'm pretty sure it doesn't damage them emotionally, it's just education not abuse.

I wouldn't call it a free choice. I was always raised to keep an open-mind, taken through the motions nonetheless because that's the done thing (how could I be the only kid in class not doing the first communion? the shame! ..and all that money!) but I was a teenager before I realised that Christianity wasn't the only religion available.

Atheism was always a choice in my household, but even then it seemed to be atheism or Catholicism. Potentially burn in hell or pray to the One True God.

I think this is the biggest danger of indoctrination - before the child is old enough to realise and make informed decisions there is already a rigidly defined 'us' and 'them'.

Tim Robbins

Goodshape wrote:

I wouldn't call it a free choice. I was always raised to keep an open-mind, taken through the motions nonetheless because that's the done thing (how could I be the only kid in class not doing the first communion? the shame! ..and all that money!) but I was a teenager before I realised that Christianity wasn't the only religion available.

Atheism was always a choice in my household, but even then it seemed to be atheism or Catholicism. Potentially burn in hell or pray to the One True God.

I think this is the biggest danger of indoctrination - before the child is old enough to realise and make informed decisions there is already a rigidly defined 'us' and 'them'.

So do you think you were abused as a child?

Goodshape

Abuse is a strong word

I think I was fortunate to have open minded, progressive parents - which was (I'm told) a conscious choice on their part, somewhat in contrast to their own upbringings (at least with regards my mother).

I do think that the role religion played in my school life was wrong and is something I'd take measures to ensure doesn't happen to any future children I may have. As a perhaps 'sensationalist' example, I was taken out the study hall at the start of a Leaving Cert exam in order to explain to the principal why I didn't join in the prayer, which he said every morning before we started.

Lucky for me I was able to explain myself quite well and was returned to the exam just a few minutes late. Still inexcusable.

Tim Robbins

Goodshape wrote:

Abuse is a strong word

So would you agree with me Dawkins "child abuse" argument is sensationalist?

Goodshape

Tim Robbins wrote:

So would you agree with me Dawkins "child abuse" argument is sensationalist?

.

Goodshape wrote:

It's a moot point. Voicing uncommonly held viewpoints, particularly with regards religion, will always provoke response and it's very easy to label it all 'sensationalist' without having to address any of the actual points of the argument itself.

I couldn't honestly say that I think it isn't a form of child abuse. But yes, I agree that saying so is sensationalist.

Do you agree that the question of sensationalism has little baring on the argument? Because if you don't then we've reached a stalemate.

Tim Robbins

Goodshape wrote:

.

I couldn't honestly say that I think it isn't a form of child abuse. But yes, I agree that saying so is sensationalist.

Do you agree that the question of sensationalism has little baring on the argument? Because if you don't then we've reached a stalemate.

Well I say it is not a form of child abuse, it is not a watertight argument and it is sensationalist.
There may be cases of extreme fundamentalists scaring the cr*p out of their kids with dogma but they are the extreme minority.

Sensationalist arguments are usually poor as they are generally trying to use sensationalism to make a strong point because there actually is no strong point or watertight argument without the sensationalism. They are usually an indication of the desire to make a strong point but not the presence of one.

It's annoying to see Scientists doing this.
Science is about objectivity and an attempt to remove bias and emotional subjective thinking. It's hard to do this if a sensationalist approach is adopted.

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I say it is not a form of child abuse, it is not a watertight argument and it is sensationalist.
There may be cases of extreme fundamentalists scaring the cr*p out of their kids with dogma but they are the extreme minority.

The problem is that a child has no prior knowledge other than what he is told by parents or teachers. He is a blank slate. If the religion scares the child or not is irrevalent. The problem is if the teachings (dictated as fact) adversely affect the rational thought of the child.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sensationalist arguments are usually poor as they are generally trying to use sensationalism to make a strong point because there actually is no strong point or watertight argument without the sensationalism. They are usually an indication of the desire to make a strong point but not the presence of one.

This argument is sensationalist
Sensationalist arguments are poor
This argument is poor

You only feel that this argument is extreme and sensationalist because you think religion is not harmful. The same thing can be said about racism, belief in a flat earth or that the humans are not animals and are the creation of a sky god. From an outside objective viewpoint religion has harmful effects on society. Granted there are benefits to be had from religion (or more precisely its side effects) but these can be recognized and used to our advantage without the need to inflict mental roadblocks on the minds of our children.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's annoying to see Scientists doing this.
Science is about objectivity and an attempt to remove bias and emotional subjective thinking. It's hard to do this if a sensationalist approach is adopted.

If people object to the teaching of scientific facts because of their religious beliefs then they have lost all objectivity and are abusing the already undeserved place that religion demands in society. We surely agree on this to some extent? Now if people refuse to admit to their children that the stories about god are (as far as we can know) just stories then they are denying the right of children to decide for themselves. Calling a child a card carrying Catholic or Muslim is wrong because that child has not (or could not) have made an informed choice about what he does or does not believe. It labels them as members of a group they have nothing in common with other than genes. Protestant children are looked at suspiciously by Catholic children because they are different, they cannot understand the differences because this is all they know or were ever told.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

The problem is that a child has no prior knowledge other than what he is told by parents or teachers. He is a blank slate. If the religion scares the child or not is irrevalent. The problem is if the teachings (dictated as fact) adversely affect the rational thought of the child.



This argument is sensationalist
Sensationalist arguments are poor
This argument is poor

You only feel that this argument is extreme and sensationalist because you think religion is not harmful. The same thing can be said about racism, belief in a flat earth or that the humans are not animals and are the creation of a sky god. From an outside objective viewpoint religion has harmful effects on society. Granted there are benefits to be had from religion (or more precisely its side effects) but these can be recognized and used to our advantage without the need to inflict mental roadblocks on the minds of our children.



If people object to the teaching of scientific facts because of their religious beliefs then they have lost all objectivity and are abusing the already undeserved place that religion demands in society. We surely agree on this to some extent? Now if people refuse to admit to their children that the stories about god are (as far as we can know) just stories then they are denying the right of children to decide for themselves. Calling a child a card carrying Catholic or Muslim is wrong because that child has not (or could not) have made an informed choice about what he does or does not believe. It labels them as members of a group they have nothing in common with other than genes. Protestant children are looked at suspiciously by Catholic children because they are different, they cannot understand the differences because this is all they know or were ever told.

I differentiate between liberal theology and fundamentalist theology. There's a massive difference.
I don't think you are Dawkins do.
You say things like
"Protestant children are looked at suspiciously by Catholic children because they are different"

You are painting in broad strokes there.
Science is about being particular, about including margins of error etc not brushing broad strokes and emotive sweeping statements.

You also compare religion or belief in God to racism, or beliefing in a flat earth.
This is just ridiculous. It is not rampant bigotry or something that has being utterly refuted. It easy to see why you don't consider Dawkins sensationalist, you seem to be the type of sensationalist lover that Dawkins is profitting from.

5uspect

When I was in school there was a new student who was labeled a Protestant and that alone was enough to induce a prejudice against him before he even started. When we were dragged to mass he would have to sit alone at the back, ostracised from everyone else simply because he was a dirty proddy.

This is a fact and liberal theology has little to do with it. Most people believe in the god that their priests tell them about every sunday, a god of miracles, a god who holds the keys to heaven and banishes "them lot" to hell.

Pretty much everywhere in the world where there are religious groups living in close proximity there is some form of sectarianism. If this is a broad stroke, its one backed up by the evidence. Their religions give them the self appointed authority to assume that they occupy the moral high ground and the ability to, quite often, treat that other lot whom they have a argument with in not so morally admiral ways. This is the reality of religion and its everyday use. You can argue theologically that this has nothing whatsoever to do with religion but unlike science religious truth is decided by the majority.

No religion is not bigotry like racism or complete willful ignorance like flat earthism, that was not the point I'm trying to make. Religion like racism etc requires an initial belief about the way the world is that is utterly unfounded to be considered at all. The fact that religion is dominant in the world says nothing about it being correct or worth considering anymore today than it was thousands of years ago. We don't teach our kids many of these ideas, we only teach our kids religion because it has remained as an idea considered worth considering by those who survived throughout history.

Tim Robbins wrote:

you seem to be the type of sensationalist lover that Dawkins is profitting from.

Seriously, offer an argument rather than resort to personal attacks. Dismissing me as a sensationalist is rather impotent.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

When I was in school there was a new student who was labeled a Protestant and that alone was enough to induce a prejudice against him before he even started. When we were dragged to mass he would have to sit alone at the back, ostracised from everyone else simply because he was a dirty proddy.

This is a fact and liberal theology has little to do with it. Most people believe in the god that their priests tell them about every sunday, a god of miracles, a god who holds the keys to heaven and banishes "them lot" to hell.
Here you are wrong. You're background sounds conservative and fundamentalist.

Pretty much everywhere in the world where there are religious groups living in close proximity there is some form of sectarianism. If this is a broad stroke, its one backed up by the evidence. Their religions give them the self appointed authority to assume that they occupy the moral high ground and the ability to, quite often, treat that other lot whom they have a argument with in not so morally admiral ways. This is the reality of religion and its everyday use. You can argue theologically that this has nothing whatsoever to do with religion but unlike science religious truth is decided by the majority.

No religion is not bigotry like racism or complete willful ignorance like flat earthism, that was not the point I'm trying to make. Religion like racism etc requires an initial belief about the way the world is that is utterly unfounded to be considered at all. The fact that religion is dominant in the world says nothing about it being correct or worth considering anymore today than it was thousands of years ago. We don't teach our kids many of these ideas, we only teach our kids religion because it has remained as an idea considered worth considering by those who survived throughout history.


Seriously, offer an argument rather than resort to personal attacks. Dismissing me as a sensationalist is rather impotent.

I agree with you that Religion has many faults but that doesn't mean it's child abuse.
Do you think you were abuse as child and that your religious authorities should go to jail? Do you seriously think that people who baptise their children are abusing them?

Goodshape

Tim Robbins wrote:

I agree with you that Religion has many faults but that doesn't mean it's child abuse.
Do you think you were abuse as child and that your religious authorities should go to jail? Do you seriously think that people who baptise their children are abusing them?

For one thing, there are deferent levels of abuse.

Is it akin to starving or beating or sexually abusing a child? No. Quite obviously not.

But is it, by and large, harmful to a childs mental development? I'd say yes.

You don't send a parent to jail for teaching their children that all coloured people are inferior, or that all travelers are scum, but most would agree that teaching a child such bigotry isn't really acceptable in this day and age (a hundred years ago you may have gotten away with it, that's what we call progress).

The world has grown, or is growing, beyond the need or desire for such broad generalising distinctions. The teaching of religion is counter-intuitive to this growth and progression, among other things.

robindch

> Do you seriously think that people who baptise their children are abusing them?

Could you list, please, who has actually made this claim? I've certainly not seen anybody.

> I agree with you that Religion has many faults but that doesn't
> mean it's child abuse.

Here's an example from the news yesterday, where I think it's certainly emotional abuse of children -- a christian teacher telling his students that if they didn't believe what he wanted them to believe, that they "belong in hell":

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html?ex=1324098000&en=87af8b74af1e13cc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Do you agree that this is emotional abuse?