Dawkins (The God Delusion) claims that it is not altogether inappropriate to consider bringing up children into a particular religion tantamount to child abuse. Some of his justification for this appears to be as follows:
1. a. An education that facilitates autonomy is one that teaches the child how, rather than what, to think.
b. Any education that fails to facilitates autonomy is tantamount to child abuse.
c. A religious upbringing teaches children what, rather than how, to think.
d. So a religious upbringing does not faciliate autonomy.
e. So a religious upbringing is tantamount to child abuse.
2. Religion has psychologically damaging effects, such as fear of hell and attitudes to sexual moraility.
3. It makes no sense to label young children with theological opinions they don't understand.
4. a. A religious education gives children labels they don't understand, which means they can only be accepting them on parental authority.
b. Accepting things merely on parental authority fails to faciliate autonomy.
1.b.
1.e.
I'm sure Dawkins is getting at something with what he is saying. Above is what I have got out what he claims, but if that is what he is claiming, then I'd say its going to take much more argument to convince me. For instance
1.b. is simply too strong to be convincing with substantial further argument for it.
If people do like his conclusion that there are close relations between child abuse and a religious education, then are there any more convincing thing that could be said in favour of it. If people don't like his conclusion, then is there anything to be said for the opinions as expressed above.
If I've misrepresented Dawkins here, sorry, but then what do other people think his actual arguments are?