What's wrong with Harry Potter?

[Florestan]

Then your quarrel is with Martin Luther, not with me 

Hits the nail on the head in respect with whom to blame for Bible fundamentalism, which is the logical consequence of Sola Scriptura, a subject that Al Moritz has addressed extensively.

In contrast, the Catholic / Orthodox Church position that interpreting the Bible is not everyone's bussiness is a monument of sanity.

[Al Moritz]

4.  The Bible does not teach that the the world is 6,000 years old.  There is an instructive and amusing story in that, which I will not take time to explore right at the moment.

I have never learned that the world is 6,000 years old. However, I know that, unlike many other atheists, Daidalos is keenly aware that most religious people don't believe that either (in fundamentalist bible-belt America it is a bigger problem than most anywhere else in the world).

5.  Probably, a great many families who try to raise their children in a faith, make mistakes.  What is the point, Bjorn, in substituting for those mistakes, Dawkins's tendentious mistakes?

Exactly the crux of the issue.

[Florestan]

I don't see how the state can gauge the issues of consent inherent to zoophilia and paedophilia. That, for me, is the critical disction between the practices of zoophilia and paedophilia, and the practice of homosexuality.

Are you implying, then, that if somehow the possibility existed that an animal or a child consent, they would be just as acceptable as hetero- or homo-sexuality?

BTW, in many cases of paedophilic sex-tourism the child actually consents. See Thailand.

[Daidalos]

You're deviating from the point;  I have no objection, I'm just saying.

1.  It is a great error of simplification to bandy the phrase "according to the Bible" as an "Authority ATM."  The Bible (we've discussed this several times before, I am sure you recall, Bjorn) is quite a complicated document;  IMO this is why the Church Fathers drew up the Creeds, rather than give every believer a copy of the Bible at home.  It takes a certain amount of intellectual responsibility to make sense of the Bible, and not everyone makes the effort to acquire that responsibility.

2.  As I understand Christian values, it is not anywhere so baldly simple a matter as "women should be subservient to men."

3.  I was raised a Christian, and I hope I have lived in a manner true to the faith;  I was never, even indirectly, taught that "homosexuals and unruly children should be stoned."

4.  The Bible does not teach that the the world is 6,000 years old.  There is an instructive and amusing story in that, which I will not take time to explore right at the moment.

5.  Probably, a great many families who try to raise their children in a faith, make mistakes.  What is the point, Bjorn, in substituting for those mistakes, Dawkins's tendentious mistakes?

I have no objection to any of your points. I did not mean to say that a mature interpretation of the Bible would say any of these things:

women should be subservient to men, homosexuals and unruly children should be stoned, and that the world is 6 000 years old

My point was that some people interpret the Bible in that way, and they do teach those things to their children. The question was if even such an inflexible and primitive, not to mention prejudiced, reading of Scripture would fall under the respectable banner of "family values" when taught to children.

It was not my intention to suggest that you, Karl, or any other Christian on these boards held such opinions.

[karlhenning]

No worries, Bjorn;  we're just talking.  I am enjoying your part in the discussion.

[Al Moritz]

I forget who said it, but not long ago I ran across the remark:  Only an intellectual could say something so stupid.

I guess that trying to defend Richard Dawkins is, at this point, about as promising as trying to defend Sarah Palin (not to suggest that she is actually an intellectual).

[Daidalos]

Are you implying, then, that if somehow the possibility existed that an animal or a child consent, they would be just as acceptable as hetero- or homo-sexuality?

BTW, in many cases of paedophilic sex-tourism the child actually consents. See Thailand.

I dispute the possibility that a child or an animal could give actual, informed consent. I don't think children are mature enough, not developed enough, to make that decision.

The more important question, is there anything else than the lack of genuine, informed consent that makes paedophilia morally reprehensible? As a hypothetical, if a child was somehow mature enough to give consent (which, I stress, I don't think it is capable of giving), I would see nothing wrong with a child engaging in sexual activity with an adult. Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I definitely don't think this is possible.

What I would wonder, is there anything other than consent that is the problem? Maybe I'm too tired, having recently awoken, but for the moment I can't figure it out. Note, for the purposes of this discussion, I would consider that the ability to consent implies that one is mature, the same as for an adult.

[Florestan]

I guess that trying to defend Richard Dawkins is, at this point, about as promising as trying to defend Sarah Palin.

Oh, but Sarah palin has at least the excuse of being a good-looking woman.  

(I know, I know, I am a mysoginistic, bigotted sexist.)

[Catison]

Indeed a really great post Daidalos.  But this sentence really struck me.

Like it or not, whether it's explicit or not in the rearing of the child, the religious upbringing will amount to an indoctrination, where the child is given the answer to a very complex question that the adults purporting to teach the child hardly have figured out for themselves.

Al has already pointed out that there are inherent fallacies of this argument, but I am particularly disturbed by the end.  Has Dawkins, or anyone else, unquestionably figured out that there is no God?  If not, what right does he have to suppose his answer to these complex questions is any more correct?  I understand that proving a negative is impossible, and, likewise, proving the existence of God is impossible, but this only elucidates that we are all in the same boat.  Dawkins is no more right, scientifically, than anyone else.  Dawkins refuses to see this.  He refuses to accept that belief in God can be rational.  He has mistaken his own positivist philosophy of science as the only philosophy.

I am left wondering, what is his ultimate point?  What does bringing up a completely secular generation gain?  Even those that have a strong appreciation for science can be misled to believe fantasies.  Here in Madison, an extremely secular city, pentawater, with all of its pseudoscience claims, flies off the shelves.  Surprisingly the most antireligious people I know swear by the stuff.

[Daidalos]

Indeed a really great post Daidalos.  But this sentence really struck me.

Like it or not, whether it's explicit or not in the rearing of the child, the religious upbringing will amount to an indoctrination, where the child is given the answer to a very complex question that the adults purporting to teach the child hardly have figured out for themselves.

Al has already pointed out that there are inherent fallacies of this argument, but I am particularly disturbed by the end.  Has Dawkins, or anyone else, unquestionably figured out that there is no God?  If not, what right does he have to suppose his answer to these complex questions is any more correct?  I understand that proving a negative is impossible, and, likewise, proving the existence of God is impossible, but this only elucidates that we are all in the same boat.  Dawkins is no more right, scientifically, than anyone else.  Dawkins refuses to see this.  He refuses to accept that belief in God can be rational.  He has mistaken his own positivist philosophy of science as the only philosophy.

I am left wondering, what is his ultimate point?  What does bringing up a completely secular generation gain?  Even those that have a strong appreciation for science can be misled to believe fantasies.  Here in Madison, an extremely secular city, pentawater, with all of its pseudoscience claims, flies off the shelves.  Surprisingly the most antireligious people I know swear by the stuff.

You are right, Dawkins hasn't figured it out. Not a chance. His answers to those questions are also unsatisfactory. I did say to Al that I agreed with him, the reverse is true; to bring up a child believing science has the ultimate answers is also a form of indoctrination.

[Florestan]

I don't think children are mature enough, not developed enough, to make that decision.

Yet you think they can decide their religion or lack thereof ("the right to make up their own mind"). Or did I get you wrong?

if a child was somehow mature enough to give consent (which, I stress, I don't think it is capable of giving), I would see nothing wrong with a child engaging in sexual activity with an adult.

You see nothing wrong in turning the human nature upside down and  destroying the very base of a civilized society...

Ah, wait, it must be blame on this:

Maybe I'm too tired, having recently awoken

[Josquin des Prez]

He wasn't saying Harry Potter is "child abuse."  He was referring to religious indoctrination where, in his (and my) view, a child is induced to believe a fantasy is real.  To call this "child abuse" is probably intemperate, to say the least, though.

That's what i get for not reading the article before speaking my mind. By your token however, the liberal education we impart in our schools today could also be considered a form of "child abuse" since much of what we teach is just the result of fantasy with no genuine scientific base.

Ultimately, Dawkins's mistake is the belief that ALL religious education is inherently anti-science. Having been raised with a catholic education, i can attest that the primary concern of religion is the moral and spiritual development of the individual. Not once was i told that the earth is 6000 years old. At no point i was told to learn the bible as a source of historical fact. The focus was always on the moral and spiritual values those stories and parables could teach.

[karlhenning]

Ultimately, Dawkins's mistake is the belief that ALL religious education is inherently anti-science.

An excellent point.

[Florestan]

Having been raised with a catholic education, i can attest that the primary concern of religion is the moral and spiritual development of the individual.

...while the primary concern of Dawkins seems to be that science triumphs over all, including morality and spirituality.

[Josquin des Prez]

As a hypothetical, if a child was somehow mature enough to give consent (which, I stress, I don't think it is capable of giving), I would see nothing wrong with a child engaging in sexual activity with an adult.

In a nutshell, why "reason" is the ultimate enemy of morality.

[karlhenning]

...while the primary concern of Dawkins seems to be that science triumphs over all, including morality and spirituality.

Scientia vincit omnia . . . .

[Daidalos]

Yet you think they can decide their religion or lack thereof ("the right to make up their own mind"). Or did I get you wrong?

No, I didn't really explicity say that. The context of my post implies that education should give the child the ability to eventually make up its mind, probably when it has matured sufficiently.

You see nothing wrong in turning the human nature upside down and  destroying the very base of a civilized society...

Oh, are you going to give me nothing more substantive than the evanescent "human nature" argument? Really, what does that even mean? I would have to reiterate, is there anything else than consent that is the issue? Of course, if your answer is "human nature", I would have to ask for a bit more detail.

And if you want to drag society into this, in the past, children have married and had offspring of their own at a much earlier age. Society didn't seem to have problems with the issue then. Morality, it would seem, evolves as well.

[Florestan]

Scientia vincit omnia . . . .

Fiat scientia, pereat mundus!

[Catison]

No, I didn't really explicity say that. The context of my post implies that education should give the child the ability to eventually make up its mind, probably when it has matured sufficiently.

I suppose this is Dawkins' point too.  But what if the same idea was applied to science?  If we apply the Kuhnian view of science that it is really just a series of shifting paradigms, then we must also accept that our current scientific paradigms are arbitrary and ultimately value-based judgments about how the world works.  In that case, should we also wait to teach children science until they can properly decide for themselves what is proper science? 

[Josquin des Prez]

And if you want to drag society into this, in the past, children have married and had offspring of their own at a much earlier age. Society didn't seem to have problems with the issue then. Morality, it would seem, evolves as well.

No, the moral dimension hasn't changed, we just extended our definition of what constitutes a "child" well past the point when fertility has already fully developed. Technically, pedophilia applies only to sexual interest towards prepubescent children, which is unnatural and deviant.