Re: Child Abuse

[Nick Jones <nj8@ntlworld.com>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Hmmm. Dawkins is notorious for a) his proselytising and  b) his tendency 
to rhetorical overstatement. If you have his arguments right Andrew, 
both seem to be in full effect here. I have to say I haven't read this 
book, though I have seen it extracted often enough.

Consider:
1) Most education of young children tends towards telling the child 
what, rather than how to think. This is largely how the exam system up 
to the age of 18 works (and why the transition to university is so 
difficult for many). Its more benign effects are called acculturation, 
and generally regarded as a Good Thing. Mind you, I agree with him that 
*within* a cultural context, one should aim to promote autonomy ...
2) Maybe ... but as it stands it seems a bald (and dogmatic) assertion
3) Again, this is widespread, not just in religious teaching.Consider 
etiquette, or other aspects of socialisation for example.
4) Ditto. Children accept most things on parental (or teacherly) 
authority ...

I think this is a highly tendentious and selective argument, though I 
sympathise with the more limited idea that one shouldn't make children 
(or anyone else) parrot opinions solely on the basis of some eternal 
sanction . It seems to me an odd faith that would value the stating of 
'correct' opinion regardless of whether this was truly believed, or even 
understood well enough to be properly consented to.

I guess what Dawkins might have said is that he doesn't mind 
acculturation/kids taking things on authority per se, but he objects to 
it in the case of religious teaching. But that would involve a whole 
other discussion about why he makes this exception ...

best
Nick Jones


Andrew Turner wrote:
>  
> 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?


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml