Teach Your Children Well
Dawkins hypothesis of why someone like me is of the same religion as my parents involves what he calls “childhood indoctrination.”
“If you were born in Arkansas and you think Christianity is true and Islam is false, knowing full well that you would think the opposite if you had been born in Afghanistan, you are the victim of childhood indoctrination.”
I think this hypothesis is largely disproved by the significant growth of Christianity in non-Christian nations like India and China. Pretty close to none of the Christians in those countries were born into Christianity.
In assuming that all faith is blind faith he misses the fact that many Christians have struggled, as I have, long and hard to ensure the faith of their parents is a reasonable one. Dawkins impression of Christians as indoctrinated photocopies of their former generation is accurate in one sense – there are indeed many Christians who are just that – but to label all Christians mindless twits is a great error.
I can’t help thinking here of the useful practice of the Bruderhof Anabaptist sect that sends their young adults “into the world” for a minimum of one year before they are allowed to decide whether or not to become members of the community. I read of this practice some years ago in Time or Newsweek and it has remained in my memory as a unique, risky, and useful concept. I believe it would go a long way toward combating both nominalism and the type of blind faith that is likely to fall apart at the first sniff of a challenge.
Dawkins insists that there is no such thing as a Muslim child or a Christian child, but rather that these are children of Muslim parents or Christian parents. “Children are too young to know where they stand on such issues, just as they are too young to know where they stand on economics or politics.” This is a point of some shallowness in his thinking.
The reasoning on the part of many parents goes something like: “I’m not going to bias my kids with my beliefs. I’m going to let them figure that out for themselves.” To me this is a gross mismanagement of parenting responsibility. They will be influenced one way or another and all one is conveying with this “non-influence” stand is that all the searching in life has not led them to anything they want to pass on.
I do agree that children raised under a certain belief system having all other systems withheld will be ill prepared to face the world. My children will be exposed to many viewpoints but I will certainly be passing on to them what I’ve learned along the way. As a responsible parent can I really abandon them in their intellectually formative years to make an unaided decision?
That idea of an unaided decision is a fallacy anyway because children don’t make many unaided decisions – you will either primarily aid them or they will be aided by someone who is not you, and at that point what was the point of your parenting, or your lifetime of learning for that matter?
The Dawkins Challenge – “Hey you idiot – read my book!”
“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down… Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature. Among the more effective immunological devices is a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely a work of Satan.”
Dawkins’ ego is obviously fully evolved. The above statement he describes as “presumptuous optimism”; I am more likely to describe it as “arrogant hyperbole”, but to each his own.
Must we resort immediately to name-calling? “Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument”? Does Dawkins really expect those he berates to read his book? On one hand his greatest wish is for these “faith-heads” to pick up his book, read it, and then become Atheists. On the other hand, if you are a “faith-head” do you want to read much further? Its like he’s saying “Hey you idiot – read my book!”
Maybe I am in a unique case. I am a member of a large and rather conservative church, but I heard about this book because my Pastor quoted from it in a couple of his sermons and encouraged me to read it as well. He’s read the whole thing and wrestled with its claims – and he made it through without becoming an Atheist. Thank God for that.
Of course Dawkins probably feels largely justified in his approach because he has been approached by numerous Christians with the same attitude, trying to convert him. I have to say that he probably is justified in that sense, but two wrongs, as they say, do not make a right, and he comes off as a bit of a fanatic. We’ll see if this continues – if it does this could be a long read.
***To read earlier parts of this series go to the Richard Dawkins page***
Mike,
Showing kids pictures of Jesus flying in from outer space with an army of winged men and souls leaping out of bodies. Telling them that a super powered being will save them from scary evil providing that they believe in him. Seems a little like indoctrination to me. Very reminiscent of the Russian class rooms of the 1950s. Maybe things are not as bad where you go to church but you should see how the Mormons roll (my in-laws), very creepy.
Things are not as bad today. Kids don’t have to rely on their parents or teachers for information. Parents no longer attempt to rule over everything that their children do and think the way they used to in the 50s and 60s. Advances in psychology have shown us that our children our actually individuals and not extensions of ourselves. Also thanks to great works by secular politicians, religious teachings have been removed from schools. Remember ‘Religion’ class in grade school? More like “Let’s all be Christians!”
I feel that Christianity (in Canada) is growing at a rate appropriate to the level of service and befit it provides to it’s participants. In other words I don’t believe that people are going to church because it’s the societal norm or because they are afraid of disappointing their parents. The true Christians now days are passionate hobbyists and that’s the way it should be for any belief system.
BTW Mike I really think you are reading the wrong book.
Andy,
More on the rest of your comment later, but I am starting think the same thing – that I am reading the wrong book. I am having that same conversation with someone else who emailed me privately.
Please make suggestions. Looking at my shelves, I have Charles Templeton’s “Farewell to God”. Have you read it?
(Amazon link —> http://tinyurl.com/2lupso )
I’m a bad atheist! I haven’t read any books on the subject. I guess that because i never really struggled with my beliefs. The only thing I struggled with is identification.
I would love to do more reading when I get a chance. I’ll put this one on the list! I have heard about it before.
Andy,
I just might read that Templeton book. He was a Canadian from Ontario. Check out the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Templeton
I haven’t read Hitchens’ book, nor do I plan to, but from what you are posting here his approach is not without merit. Two things in particular, that countless people have been killed in “the name of God” and that children are often indoctrinated into their parent’s religion, are dead on accurate. The latter issue is one of, if not the biggest, obstacles to young people establishing their own identities, particluary if they are gay in a “fundamentalist” home.
What I perceive as the major flaw in Hitchens’ arguement, at least the parts posted here, is condemning God for the actions and unfaithfulness of his people. The Bible, from Adam and Eve through the crucifixion, talks in great detail about man’s disobedience to God. If Hitchens is the type that points to the presence of natural disasters, illness, hardship, crime, etc. as evidence of the absence of God, he is missing the whole concept of the freedom of choice God gives us, even if that freedom leads people toward evil as it so often does. Just because there is an evil force in the world does not preclude the notion that there is a powerful, and ultimately victorious, force for good.
Without an ultimate destiny for our souls, what’s the point of even being born?
Jim Johnson
http://www.straightnotnarrow.org
“I think this hypothesis is largely disproved by the significant growth of Christianity in non-Christian nations like India and China. Pretty close to none of the Christians in those countries were born into Christianity.”
How does changing from one doctrine to another demonstrate that people were not indoctrinated as children? To the contrary, it seems obvious that those who are taught the virtue of believing (anything) on faith are the best potential converts.
“In assuming that all faith is blind faith he misses the fact that many Christians have struggled, as I have, long and hard to ensure the faith of their parents is a reasonable one.”
I do not recall where Dawkins made the claim that all religious belief is based on blind faith rather than reasoned, systematic theology or apologetic reasoning. Do you?
I think the point Dawkins was trying to make is that world religions encourage the inculcation of children with various religious beliefs well before they develop the critical thinking facilities necessary to evaluate such beliefs. Do you disagree?
““Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument”?”
I think they are. Very much so. I was speaking with a woman recently who stated:
“The Bible IS the only word, the only TRUE WORD OF GOD, without exception. I will not tolerate any other beliefs in that matter.”
Is she an exception? Not in my experience.
I often asked theists a question. “What would make you question your faith? Question the existence of God? What could I show you?”
If you can answer this honestly, if you can give me an example of something that could make you change your mind then you’re obviously not immune to argument. But if you can’t, if there’s nothing that I could show you, then can you really claim to be open to argument? I don’t think so.
As for Dawkins, I enjoy his books. The God Delusion is very harsh and not like any of his other books. He really can be profound, ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’ is a cracking book. As for other atheist literature, I don’t think you have any option but to read Sagan. Honestly, forget Sam Harris, Russell (What I believe is still a great book) but Carl Sagan has such a wonderful way of putting forward his thoughts, it’s very moving. You can get a taste of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
That’s from his book ‘Pale Blue Dot’. His latest work with his widow is ‘The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God”
It really is incredible.
You won’t get much ranting from him or shouting about how evil religion is, it’s just a beautiful voyage in his search for God. It’s particularly interesting if you like astronomy and want answers about the universe. Highly recommended.
Alternatively, if you want someone that annoys you :) then try Letter to a Christian NAtion by Sam Harris, that’s pretty good.
Greetings,
I agree with the previous commentator(?) about Sagan. I just read “The Demon Haunted World” and it is a very interesting book. Sagan’s main thrust is that we humans (of all philosophical and religious bends) need to brush up on our critical thinking skills. Sagan discusses ideas such as alien abduction, witch hunts, etc and links them to more testable hypothesis (I hate trying to pluralize words ending with s) such as waking dreams and hallucinations.
Unlike Dawkins, Sagan does not explicitly lump religion in with the other “delusions” but I think that he is implying that one should focus the lens of critical, rational thought on religion. The point that is most interesting to me is the final two chapters, when he encourages all people to turn their critical thinking skills on the government. He blasts people for being uninformed voters who do not question the government’s motives for going to war, passing laws, etc. He wrote this book in 1996, and passed away shortly after. I wonder what he would think of the current US administration and their “war on terror”…
As an aside, I am a science teacher, and I am interested in many aspects of science education. I have some questions on my blog:
http://cosmoscott.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/some-things-that-i-would-like-opinions-on/
that I would like answered, if anyone feels so inclined. Thanks
Scott
Greetings, again…
Something I was just thinking about. Dawkins does not base his atheism on philosophical arguments. He bases it on scientific evidence, and that is key. He states (in some form or another) that if he was presented with enough physical evidence that God exists, then he would switch his viewpoint.
How many religious or even other atheists can admit that? We hate admitting when we are wrong, but that is a key aspect of science. When you think that A is right, but if all the evidence points to B, then you should switch your thinking…
“How many religious or even other atheists can admit that? We hate admitting when we are wrong, but that is a key aspect of science. When you think that A is right, but if all the evidence points to B, then you should switch your thinking…”
I certainly can. Not a problem with it at all and I don’t think many atheists have an issue with changing their minds. In fact, I almost just became a creationist :) http://www.atheistperspective.com/am-i-a-creationist/
It’s simply a question of rational argument and reasoned debate. The proof that Dawkins proposes doesn’t just have to be scientific. I know what you’re getting at in terms of philosophy vs science but Dawkins put forward many philosophical views himself. The problem is, where does discussion get you?
As a science teacher, if I tell you that nitrogen is created through a process of water coming into contact with bees you’d want more than a philosophical argument.
BTW, Demon Haunted World is a great book. I think it’s crucial for our children to think critically, and Sagan was spot on. It’s so sad he died, he had so much to say and apart from Douglas Adams, he was my favorite atheist.
Ps, Michael, you should get a plug in that does subscriptions, something like this: http://txfx.net/code/wordpress/subscribe-to-comments/
That way your visitors are able to be emailed when a post is replied to.
First off, I welcome those interested in an atheist’s view point to check out my blog: http://36chambers.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/why-im-an-athei
st-i-promise-it-will-be-at-least-a-little-funny/
A roommate of mine, Kevin, has a rebuttal at the post above it.
To get to your point, Michael, I think Dawkins’ point is valid. Calling a child “Muslim” or “Christian” is not giving the child a choice. Indoctrination is extremely easy for a young child — there’s a Dilbert comic where Dogbert converts a toddler to Dogbertism. Obviously, Dawkins is assuming that naming will also include actions; I could call a child an alien, but that doesn’t make it so.
I do struggle with the idea of calling it “child abuse.” It can limit options for a child later in life; in extreme cases it can reduce a child’s freedom of thought. There are plenty of cases in the Bible in which I would not my child to emulate the behavior suggested. Calling it “child abuse”, however, is just intended to provoke a reaction, I think.
Hello all,
I am a considered atheist (originally a Christian), and my wife is a Christian. We have two small children, 6 and 2, and although both kids attend church with their mom, the older one is fond of saying he is an atheist when he is around me. I realize he does this not because he understands atheism, but because he wants to be like daddy. While I’m flattered, of course, I am always careful to correct him: he’s too young to know what he is, and he should not make up his mind about this sort of thing so young. Personally, I feel no conflict over teaching him about critical thought and my perspective on religion: he is a thoughtful and curious kid. But I feel it would be doing him a disservice to let him take such a label upon himself at this age. I wonder how many Christians can say the same with regard to their own Children. (I know some can, but far from all.)
Another turn-about comes to mind. Dawkins is perhaps currently the world’s most prominent atheist. And perhaps the core chapter of Dawkins’ book is called “Why there is almost certainly no God.” Even the title of the chapter acknowledges some small amount of uncertainty on the part of the author, and he makes it explicit in the body of the chapter. His stance does not surprise me in the least. However, how many Christians are willing to publicly acknowledge a scintilla of doubt about the existence of their deity? Precious few, in my experience, and none of the prominent ones with much to lose from such a pronouncement. But I was such a Christian at one time, and now I am an atheist. I believe doubt is good, but for many Christians, doubt is thoughtcrime.
Ironwolf
I don’t have children, I’m not here to tell people what they should do but I will question whether a child should be allowed to go to church with his mother? There are many ways of finding out about religion, church is one of the worst. I’m not sure what purpose it fills. I will say that exposing young children to religion is essential, not just one religion, but all. One problem is that by having the child attend a christian church, the christian religion is put on a pedestal above others.
I feel really bad writing this actually, you’re obviously very sensible and I hate the idea that you might think I’m criticizing, I’m really just making a general point. Only you know your situation so don’t imagine for one moment I want to tell you what’s right for your own child.
All I want to say is that for me, the thought of a child attending church really makes me feel very very uneasy.
One last thing, your child is an atheist. No doubt about it. He will stay an atheist until he believes in God.
AtheistPerspective,
I understand where you’re coming from. It is the family situational aspects that necessitate my kids going to church for the time being, and I know pretty well what they’re being exposed to and how they’re being supervised, so I’m not overly concerned— it is far from a hardcore indoctrination they are experiencing and if I thought it was, I would intervene.
As to whether my child is an atheist, I well-understand the argument that all kids are born atheist, and I agree with the general principle: it is the cultural/religious indoctrination that kids undergo that sets the probabilities about what religion they will join. However, I think we need to clearly distinguish between “atheist” in that sense and “atheist” in the sense of being deliberately signed-on to a philosophical stance with full consideration of its implications. So I agree with Dawkins that we should no more label a child as an “atheist child” than we should label them as a “Catholic child” or a “Muslim child.” I would much rather see a child for what he or she is: a child.
I don’t think that the term ‘atheist’ should be aligned with any agenda. It’s just a word to describe a belief that does not exist. We, as atheists, may act in a certain way and campaign for rational thought, but that’s our choice. There is no atheist manifesto or constitution, atheists are simply those that have no belief or, indeed, those that have not yet formed a belief in a deity. So I don’t think it’s a problem calling a child an atheist child. I’m not sure Dawkins would have an issue with it either.
Would there be a problem with calling a child ‘a non believer in fairies’ or a ‘non alcoholic’? No, because it doesn’t define a way of life.
As for your own child’s experience, I won’t comment, I feel bad enough already for bringing it up…But I’ll give you an example. I attended a public school in the UK, as with all public schools, religion and church was an important part of the educational process. But no one really paid any attention to it. But as time went by, especially for the younger kids, they started not be de-sensitized to religion and religious beliefs. That was the problem. Having faith in the absence of evidence was not seen as a bad thing. I don’t believe that any child, exposed to that kind of thinking, will not be influenced by it, no matter how mild the situation seems. Kids at that age have not developed an intellectual armor, they are unable to think about concepts rationally. That’s the worry that I have.
Hi, Im from Melbourne Australia.
Please find a refreshingly different way of teaching children of all ages how to Remember and Be the Divine Mystery.
1. http://www.dabase.org/happytxt.htm
Also Real God Cannot Be Proven
2. http://www.dabase.org/rgcbpobk.htm
And on understanding and transcending the mommy-daddy parental diety of exoteric religion.
3. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html
I don’t think the core of Dawkins’ book is really debateable. He’s not likely to convince many believers who weren’t already halfway to atheism, nor are believers likely to convert him (or other atheists).
Dawkins’ grumpy manner may be best explained by the way atheists have been shunned in many spheres and religious leaders given special attention. This may be a fair comment, depending on the circumstances, but sooner or later atheists have got to get over this point if they want to have any true sharing of ideas with people of religion (and many say they don’t).
On another issue, as Michael says, parents have a duty to pass on their best wisdom and values to their children, so why would they not expose them to their religion? Dawkins is also tarring everyone with the same brush. Yes, millions of believers do essentially brainwash their children (though they wouldn’t describe it as such). But many moderate believers, especially in Western democracies, allow their offspring to openly question these beliefs, especially as they mature and many kids end up as non-believers of one degree or another.
This brings me to my biggest problem with Dawkins, which is his refusal to brook any compromise or alliance with religious moderates. Despite his specious argument about all theists carrying a virus-like “meme” that transmits the need to believe like a disease, his position has no scientific or even rational basis, and is really just a prejudice.
Like other prejudices, it hurts the “cause” of atheism but, more important, it undermines the ability of Dawkins’ followers to join ranks against the excesses of religious extremists, whether Muslim or Christian. (Other atheists proponents, like Hitchens, for example, whil spewing even more vitriol, when push comes to shove on real-world issues have litle problems making such compromises (even if it led Hitch to his controversial support of George Bush’s war on Iraq).
JE
Hey there. I just want to say that while I may disagree with many of your conclusions, I admire your open-mindedness and willingness to read this book.
I think one good thing to keep in mind is that Dawkins isn’t always talking about ALL Christians or ALL atheists. He doesn’t mean that every single Christian became a Christian through childhood indoctrination; it is, however, a common way to come to that set of beliefs. Similarly, when he uses derogitory names, it’s probably not addressed to people like you who are actually willing to think. I agree that he didn’t need to be such a dick (no pun intended) about it, though.
Jake,
You say, “This brings me to my biggest problem with Dawkins, which is his refusal to brook any compromise or alliance with religious moderates.” But I would disagree. There is much room for compromise and alliance between passionate atheists and religious moderates. We can cooperate in helping the poor, protecting the environment, raising healthy families, and in general creating a better world together. The place where compromise is not to be had is in granting religious beliefs a special class of deference from other beliefs.
Sorry. I’ve read all the books, Mike, and your argument is anticipated and dealt with both summarily and in depth in most of them.
You are worried that your identity will fall apart without a morality, and you are worried that without religion you can’t have morality, and therefore you just follow the well trodden path.
Teaching a kid to think well is the job of parents, but if you haven’t learned to think well, then you make excuses, because what could be worse than an unqualified parent.
If you’re worried about your kids, don’t. They’re not going to be your peer group, and more importantly, you aren’t going to be their peer group. Each generation should receive the best wisdom of their elders. Religion isn’t the best wisdom these days.
Time to catch the reason train, Mike. But another will be along in a while.
Hitchens’ book is worth reading for the quality of the arguments and rhetoric, and the sheer expertise of the language. Really. I know he’s a drunk, and I can hardly understand him, he mumbles so, but he’s a brilliant thinker, and well worth reading.
ormond@mail.com
Ormond,
To tell you the truth I haven’t considered morality apart from religion and I haven’t come to that chapter in TGD yet. So your read on my worrying about my identity is not accurate I’m afraid. It might be the case when I get to it but so far it’s not.
This is an educational experience for me and conversing with all of you is a great help.
I read a column by Hitchens (on Paris Hilton no less) and it pushed me a bit more towards reading his book. “Sheer expertise of the language” is right. And I laughed out loud at his column at lunch today, and I’m sure the other people in the room found that a little odd.
I’m reading P.J. O’Rourke right now too so I’ve L(ing).O.L quite a bit lately.
Well, Mike, it’s hard to discuss religion without talking about morality. It’s becoming the last refuge of the religion apologists.
If you think Dawkins is arrogant and egotistical, try reading “The Extended Phenotype” which he bills as a book for his peers.
Like Chomsky on deep linguistic structure, you can’t really appreciate Dawkins without reading his work on genetics and evolution. I learned a little from it, so I’ll keep referring back to it.
When you have people with this kind of talent, quibbling about their tone of voice seems to miss the point about genius. Dawkins and Chomsky are way ahead of us. It must be very frustrating to have to constantly wait for us to understand.
One other point. The Templeton Prize. Have you read any of the winning work? Con jobs. Obvious pandering to the Intelligent Design segment of collapsed mentality.
Hang in there, Mike. You should carry this blog until you finally realize that the real “two types of people” are evidence-based and faith-based, and I think eventually evidence-based has to win.
Flat-earth vs nukes. No contest. Same results in intellectual argument. You do understand that this ground has been plowed before?
Oh, incidentally, if it becomes necessary for you to prove logically that morality can be derived from existential logic?
Deryck Beyleveld wrote “The Dialectical Necessity of Morality — An Analysis and Defense of Alan Gewirth’s Argument to the Principle of Generic Consistency” just for you.
It’s the best and cleanest argument I’ve been able to find. It requires no concessions to belief at all, except the belief that you exist, that language communicates, and that others think the way you do.
The basics.
Ormond
Ormond,
My point about tone is that he undoes his own intentions, or at least the intentions he claims to have. Why would his target audience – Christians he wants to become Atheists – read past the first few chapters? Ok, why have I read past the first few chapters? Atheism seemed like an interesting next thing to study and I go on 1 to 2 to 3 year cycles of study.
I’m not a student or a full-time academic; I’m just a curious guy with a day-job who enjoys trying to figure things out.
I do not see faith and reason as enemies. They coax each other. There are people who are exclusively “evidence-based” (claiming not to need faith) and those who exclusively “faith-based” (claiming not to need evidence) but most of us are a mixture of the two.
I have heard of the Templeton but I don’t know a lot about it. I am hearing a lot about it in TGD though – and none of it good obviously!