tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post5709499557450762373..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Richard Dawkins: Not So Bad After All?Jimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-85961299255960258032011-06-29T16:15:48.290-04:002011-06-29T16:15:48.290-04:00He doesn't equate all religious upbringing as ...He doesn't equate all religious upbringing as sexual abuse.<br /><br />He has a specific axe to grind against doctrines of hell in the minds of children. And you're right that your comment is "broadly aimed" at Catholic priests. He spends a bit of time contrasting their approach to religion with what he sees the less harmful, Anglican upbringing he experienced.<br /><br />When it comes to teaching children to fear everlasting torture, (something I was subjected to in my own childhood, though -gratefully- not from my parents), I completely agree with Dawkins that this is abusive behavior. I don't know whether it's fair to characterize all Roman Catholic priests with this teaching, but they are Dawkin's target in this article - not "parents who bring up their children in a religious home". (That was your mis- characterization.)<br /><br />There is an increasingly disturbing amount of violence, hate speech, and hate-driven political policies erupting throughout our world that can be traced directly to many sorts of religious upbringing (not all religious upbringing - but enough to damage us). Dawkins makes comments like this for a reason. For too long, any attitude that can be placed under the umbrella of "religion", has enjoyed a privileged status in our public discourse. <br /><br />To a nonbeliever, why should religion be granted more respect than any other human institution? Especially when a religion promotes hatred; and, believe me, to those who don't believe in hell - hell is a doctrine of hatred.Beauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16231021323767556713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-39023381126991899452011-06-29T14:56:06.435-04:002011-06-29T14:56:06.435-04:00Apology not necessary. I am truly not trying to b...Apology not necessary. I am truly not trying to be disingenuous. It was the comment <br /><br /><i>Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place</i><br /><br />that really rattled my cage. To equate ANY religious upbringing with sexual abuse is absolutely uncalled for. I understand that he is writing in the context of the horrific priest sex cases but the comment seemed broadly aimed. <br /><br />In the same essay, he wrote: <br /><br /><i>Only a minority of priests abuse the bodies of the children in their care. But how many priests abuse their minds? Why aren't Catholics and ex-Catholics lining up to sue the church into the ground, for a lifetime of psychological damage?</i><br /><br />How have i mischaracterized his attitudes toward religious upbringing?Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-36191738370879301272011-06-28T13:45:04.117-04:002011-06-28T13:45:04.117-04:00Jim
May I apologize for that last comment? I don&...Jim<br /><br />May I apologize for that last comment? I don't believe that you are trying to be disingenuous or deceptive. I went too far.<br /><br />I do think that you've mis-characterized Dawkins a little.<br /><br />But now I've mis-characterized you.<br /><br />Sorry.Beauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16231021323767556713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-36291323234282046112011-06-27T23:21:01.223-04:002011-06-27T23:21:01.223-04:00I realize I'm coming late to this conversation...I realize I'm coming late to this conversation, but I have to point out that you have grossly mis-characterized Dawkin's article on sexual abuse.<br /><br />There is no question (from his other writings) that Dawkins would prefer children not be labelled by the religion of their parents.<br /><br />But in this article he does not (as you accuse) compare upbringing in any religious home to sexual abuse! He has a much more specific point to make:<br /><br />"The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse, just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse."<br /><br />That's it. He believes that instilling children with a fear of never-ending torment by fire is an extreme form of mental abuse. I agree with him. <br /><br />Let me quote a few of your words back to you: To misrepresent Dawkins in service a creationist stereotype "is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst."Beauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16231021323767556713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-22845867297754393182011-06-11T15:24:38.490-04:002011-06-11T15:24:38.490-04:00Absolutely. I'm sure that on a personal level...Absolutely. I'm sure that on a personal level Dawkins is a swell guy. He strikes me as someone I wouldn't mind hanging out with (in contrast to, say, Chris Hitchens). <br /><br />But he's certainly not merely the victim of a religious smear campaign. He plays right into the picture that Creationists paint of him. And his supporters (online, anyway) portray him in pretty much the same way.AMWnoreply@blogger.com