the_grip on 24/1/2007 at 16:02
Definitely a fair point, and i definitely agree that children should be given room to explore these things on their own.
However, did you find your Catholic upbringing mental abuse? That's what the wiki claims Dawkins says in ch. 9 of the book. Of course, i'm shooting from the hip - i haven't read the book. i just find religious upbringing apples and oranges when compared to mental abuse - there simply is not a comparison (okay, to be fair, i'm sure there have been parents who have turned religion into mental abuse, but that has more to do with the parent and nothing to do with religion).
The Alchemist on 24/1/2007 at 16:07
Calling it mental abuse exemplifies why Dawkins fails with his arguments. He's too damn insulting. It's not mental abuse, it's mental conditioning, certainly, but abuse? Who's to say they're abused? Love of god is a beautiful thing, and religion gives people a lot of hope and meaning and gives them strength. And the concept of God being infallible (or maybe the better word is simply unprovable), who is to say this is a bad thing? Not my cup of tea, not STD's cup of tea, but certainly not a "bad" thing, considering we simply don't have any concrete answers either way.
The slope gets a bit steeper when it comes to lifestyle choices, religious ethics, and things such as creationism vs evolution, etc. But these specifics are things that definitely evolve as a person grows older, and still not abuse by any means. Creationism/intelligent design have absolutely no place in school though.
jay pettitt on 24/1/2007 at 16:18
'Child abuse' is a blunt term with unpleasant connotations. But yes, grown ups abuse their position of trust and power when they push a partisan agenda on children. Kids are impressionable, Grown ups have a responsibility to consider their influence with care.
When Dawkins wrote the book, intelligent design was finding sanctuary among schools in the US. Intelligent Design is an insidious piece of work designed to undermine the value of science in society. It's in this context that Dawkins is particularly uppity. I imagine he is resting a little easier now that the political sway in the US is a little less unbalanced once more.
Of course it's not just religions who are at it. There are umpteen dozen groups of thought vying for influence on school curricula, media and whatnot.
SD on 24/1/2007 at 18:05
Yeah, you all gotta remember that Dawkins is probably the world's preeminent evolutionary biologist, so it's no wonder he has such an axe to grind with religion right now, and that he uses such strident terminology.
To borrow a phrase from the other side; "You gotta put it into its historical context" ;)
the_grip on 24/1/2007 at 18:23
Touché, very true :)
Quite honestly, i'd be quite a bit happier as well if all these quacks wouldn't clamor for God to be taught in schools. Dawkins and i could definitely agree on that.
Uranium - 235 on 24/1/2007 at 19:10
Quote Posted by Thirith
Thing is, I do think the text signals (most of the time) what should be read as what. The Ten Commandments signal, by means of their name and by means of their transmission, that they're Commandments, i.e. they're moral instructions.
Have you read the Ten Commandments? Half of them are basically about being a good Christian or burning in hell. The other half are the only ones that apply to actual morals, and they're pretty poor choices. I think to best sum this up is to quote George Carlin's take on the 10 Commandments, because he's absolutely right.
Quote:
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?
You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:
About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.
Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.
Let's start with the first three:
I AM THE LORD THY GOD
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATHRight off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:
HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHERObedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.
Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESSStealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.
And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFEOnce again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital fidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.
But when you think about it, honesty and fidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODSThis one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:
THOU SHALT NOT KILLMurder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:
Thou shalt always be honest and faithful
to the provider of thy nookie.
&
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course
they pray to a different invisible man than you.Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.Isn't it interesting how one of the commandments isn't "don't be gay"?
fett on 24/1/2007 at 19:14
Yeah, I'd definitely go with George Carlin's interpretation there. He's really really smart and all...
If you could just quote that part about burning in hell, that'd be great 'cause I've probably read that text about 1,000,000 times and I seem to have missed it. I did see some stuff about children suffering if the parents, y'know...sacrificed them in a fire to Ba'al which makes some sense IMO. Also something about cursing god being a bad thing to do, as well as living a prosperous life if the commandments are obeyed. But I'm specifically not finding the burning in hell part. Maybe Carlin has a better grasp of the language - you could ask him.
As for not being gay, you're aware that the 10 commandements are a table of contents right? The rest of Exodus and Leviticus are the actual commandments and there are 618 of them, and they actually do cover homosexuality pretty thoroughly. But I guess Carlin didn't cover that in his seminar.
Uranium - 235 on 24/1/2007 at 19:16
Quote Posted by ilweran
Maybe these days that's true of the major religions now, but isn't it generally thought that religions started out as a way of explaining the world?
The problem is that people stick to rules long after their usefulness has ceased- dietary restrictions are a good example. Very helpful when you don't have a fridge, less necessary these days.
That's why even though I was brought up christian I'm now pagan. Even if I did decide I was atheist I wouldn't automatically have to give up my religion unless I wanted to :cheeky:
David Mills in "Atheist Universe" called this the 'God of the Gaps'. God was created to fill gaps in understanding. Now, the more we understand about our world, the smaller the gaps are that a god can fit in.
Back in the day, the Greeks believed that when you shot an arrow, a god was responsible for keeping the arrow moving (they did not understand inertia). Another god gradually pulled the arrow down to earth. Yet we now so well understand both those concepts to say that there is a god controlling the flight of an arrow is insanity.
The odd difference between 'todays' gods and 'yesterdays' gods is that in the old days, gods took much more proactive roles in life. The arrow did not just plot onto the ground once you released the bowstring because a god carried it to its target. Nowadays, when you release the bowstring, the tension in the bow is released as kinetic energy. The arrow is in motion and, short of air resistance, will travel as far as the kinetic energy released into it dictates. However, no matter what, the arrow will always accelerate towards earth at a rate of 10 meters / sec / sec because of gravitational attraction.
Except, instead of a god carrying the arrow and another god pulling it towards earth, god has instead created laws that control the flight of the arrow and its path towards earth. God has retreated from the realm of the natural to purely supernatural.
SD on 24/1/2007 at 19:20
Quote Posted by fett
Yeah, I'd definitely go with George Carlin's interpretation there. He's really really smart and all...
Carlin ain't
that smart... he didn't mention the irony of bible-thumpers wanting to display the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" in a place where people are routinely condemned to death.
Quote:
If you could just quote that part about burning in hell, that'd be great
Maybe he got it from "reading between the lines" ;)