Top Diaries

Dawkins said that when he went further and said that religious indoctrination of young children including ideas of hell and eternal suffering was perhaps worse than some sexual abuse, the audience - in Belfast - cheered !

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 07:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Has Dawkins actually studied the psychological impact of childhood sexual abuse, at any length?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 08:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Has Dawkins, for that matter, done a representative sample study among Catholic churches in Ireland, to find out the percentage of 'fire and brimstone' sermons held in front of children?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 08:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obviously he was presenting this as a bit of personal speculation - not reporting results of research. The fact that the audience - in an area which has experienced religious division of education and brutal conflict between groups identified on a largely religious basis - cheered, is some informal support for his speculation - nothing more. Note also that he said "some".

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 04:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I bet that if he would ahve been among social service people who treat sexually abused children the answer would have been quite different.

ANd frankly I can present you all my family with fascism-religious indoctrination.. all of them quite happy frankly and with no pshychologichal trauma of any kind... which can not be said about most children violated by their parents.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That cleary shows his lack of knowledge of a bunch of topics.. unless he was trying to fire the crowd as evangelists do.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it doesn't. yet again you seem to think that while others aren't allowed to have opinions not supported by scientific research, you can have any old opinion you want and don't have to justify it all. Where is YOUR evidence that shows he is wrong - in what was clearly just a personal speculation - very well received by a group with experience of religious indoctrination - and in some cases, directly or indirectly, sexual abuse - which can take many forms.

I've already asked you not to adopt the patronising attitude that if I defend Dawkins and criticise you it's because I'm taking things personally - not at all. I just hate unfair criticism of anybody, especially from people who don't offer evidence or sound arguments.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you suggesting that teaching religious to a child is worst than sexual abuse?

Do you really want me to back it up?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Spain under Franco provides ample proof of that statement.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But fascism indoctrination with personal beatings is different than purely teaching religious.

I did not take that as a comparison between beating indoctrination and sexual abuse ( I would say sexual abuse si still uchmore worse than physical pnishment with indoctrination but that's certainly debatable).. I saw as a comparison between religious indoctrination without personal physical abuse and sexual abuse.
we all indoctriante children in one thing or another.. there's no other way to do.. deciding that soemthing is harmful.. well who is to decide?

And franco is a clear proof that people taugth with religious doctrine can ahve perfectly happy lifes.. lie most of my family did... not to be comapred with children sexual assault... and from personal experince.. even those beaten-up and with the msot fascism outlook can not be comapred with the problem of a sexual assault.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're not going to prove it. I doubt that there are many, if any, psychological studies on the subject of religious indoctrination in children. It would be too explosive in a world so steeped in religious mythology.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 02:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (4.00 / 4)

Planned or unplanned, all parents 'indoctrinate' their children - up to the age of 6 or 7 - by which age personality and primary values are established. The general environment - media, play schools, friends and relations, neighbours etc, of course, have to be supportive of those traits and values. It is easy to enjoy fried grasshoppers when all around you eat them.

How that indoctrination plays out depends on how the environment, and this information and reward input, changes subsequently. Given a biodiversity of ideas, the results are unpredictable.

The paucity of psychological studies as you point out, is a function of tunnel vision as to how culture works in general and in particular. How we learn is almost a taboo subject. And yet one that is central to escaping our dilemma - what is happiness?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 02:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's precisely the reason indeed.

Religious and sexual and vision of the world, and the basic mythology..e verything is indoctrinated.. so there cna be no study because there is no aberration.

On the other ahand doing upon your children something that the rest of the community consideres awful is the starting point of trauma.

It can be sexual or religious (if you teach something that is considered taboo by the rest of the community).

So religious indoctrination would be awful only if society considers it as such and the children react to the general environment as they would react if he would kno he has been violated.

And then we ahve violence of course.. which is an obejtivize language and can be studied.

For that reason Dawkins has not the slitghtest idea he is talking about... religious is standard indoctrination as any other we have in our lifes and maks us what we are... sexual assault enters the realm of doing somehting cosnidered awful and disgusting by the society to your own children which indeed can be studied and finally violence which is a language on its own can also be studied

Violence on sexual assault is the worst kind of nightmare.. and it has nothing to do with the huncreds of nomral indoctrination we receive.. religious included...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Anything is ok as long as it's accepted cultural practice? You would do well to rethink your world view in terms of something other than relativism.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are many many societies around the world that have survived for millennia with cultural practices that you and I might think are abominable. The fact that they have survived is an indication that there are many paths to 'happiness'.

They have survived not because of science, but because of perceptions. This is true of all belief systems, and the fact that perceptions (cultural DNA) are as important as genetics imo.

It s only since Post-Colonialism that some of these perceptual anomalies have been under challenge. And these challenges are continuing, if not growing. The caste system survives in India, even as it becomes an iTC focus. I'd even say there is a new caste system in Europe.

I've no idea about the answers, but they are certainly relative.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are many many societies around the world that have survived for millennia with cultural practices that you and I might think are abominable.

No argument here.

The fact that they have survived is an indication that there are many paths to 'happiness'.

Societies do not survive because their particular cultures make their members happy, they survive because their members manage to reproduce generation after generation and resist external influence to the extent that their culture remains intact. The word "they" in this context needs examination as well. Who, exactly and specifically, does a particular society/culture work for? Or make happy, as you put it?

I've no idea about the answers, but they are certainly relative.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for either extreme, maybe with the exception of kcurie. I'm not interested in rounding up all human males that are marrying 10 year old females, for example, but I'm not going to take the relativist view that this is a valid path to happiness for all people involved.

I'll put my money where my mouth is: I'll pin my baseline assumptions on the universal declaration of human rights. Or at least desire the debate to begin there. "Western" assumptions or not, an honest reading of the document contains enough material to make the blood boil of anyone in favor of coercive, hierarchical systems - the sort of systems we are prone to and have engaged in since the agricultural revolution. In that context we've gone from the king as god to the systems we have today in which there is a broader distribution of power. Why not take this further?

We need more people studying the concept of happiness. The fact that happiness is relative, at least in a quantitative sense, doesn't stop the Dalai Lama from coming up with some good philosophy on the subject. Surely the liberal, secular world can come up with something better than the null solution "lack of complete understanding means we can say nothing"?

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

As I read it, "human males that are marrying 10 year old females" is not a homogenous group. Some cultures may (I don't know--and who is an expert on all cultures?) marry their children at 10, but the children won't live together (maybe in a separate hut) until after the puberty rites have finished. And then they're free to divorce, maybe, but they then become brother and sister--

--and who lives in a single culture? There is my culture, my personal habits and beliefs, which interacts with the various cultures of the people I have regular contact with, out to the people I will never meet but maybe read about, and on out, to the edges of nature, to the edge of the atmosphere, up into the electrical regions...maybe one of the leading researchers in quantum mechanics has grandparents who were married at ten, lived happily, and so she has no in-built prejudice against the institution...

...so which institutions are evil?

Religion (Rumi; Lao Tse; Krishnamurti)--are they humans or gods? And what do their gods say about humans? And can we understand what they say; can we imagine (or fantasise) the structure of the culture, the lives--how were they lived?

Well, how are they lived right now? Whose culture is malign? Whose individual culture is destructive of the wider cultures; who seeks to limit human experience through words. Some gods don't go away just because people stop believing in them. Imagine a sun worshipper from maybe 400BC--pick a country--and then wake them up exactly where they died, first thing in the morning, just as the sun breaks the horizon.

The sun! The god rises!

Two weeks later they have enrolled in a course--because she is intelligent. Now, is worshipping the sun a religion?

The way I'm understanding these conversations is...that we need to find out who's in charge, coz things are fucked up, guv. And the BIG BIG fuck ups (killing)...or maybe killing isn't a big fuck up? War...Dying means the sun goes out--for you. No more sun god. Or maybe when you die you expand--whoosh!--up and out, finally!, but no....there's gravity pulling you back for another swing round--okay, people believe crazy things, but they act within various boundaries--and each culture needs a means of dealing with sadists--those who turn against the tribe; (I'm in your tribe: I would like to have a U.N. passport--I would only be allowed to travel in countries recognised by and recognising the U.N. I would swear allegiance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Big Brother

"apparently benevolent but repressive authority" first recorded 1949, from George Orwell's novel "1984."

brother
O.E. broþor, from P.Gmc. *brothar, from PIE base *bhrater (cf. Gk. phratér, L. frater, O.Ir. brathir, Skt. bhrátár-, O.Pers. brata, Goth. bróþar, O.Prus. brati, O.C.S. bratru "brother"). As a familiar term of address from one man to another, it is attested from 1912 in U.S. slang; the specific use among blacks is recorded from 1973. Alternate pl. brethren was predominant c.1200-1600s, but survived only in religious usage. Colloquial shortening bro is attested from 1666. Brotherhood is M.E. broiþerhede (c.1300). In Arabic, Urdu, Swahili, etc., brother-in-law, when addressed to a male who is not a brother-in-law, is an extreme insult, with implications of "I slept with your sister."

fraternity
c.1330, "body of men associated by common interest," from O.Fr. fraternité, from L. fraternitatem (nom. fraternitas), from fraternus "brotherly," from frater "brother," from PIE *bhrater (see brother). College Greek-letter organization sense is from 1777, first in reference to Phi Beta Kappa; shortened form frat first recorded 1895. Fraternize is attested from 1611, "to sympathize as brothers;" sense of "cultivate friendship with enemy troops" is from 1897; used oddly by World War II armed forces to mean "have sex with women from enemy countries." Fraternal is 1421, from M.L. fraternalis, from L. fraternus.

bully (n.)
1538, originally "sweetheart," applied to either sex, from Du. boel "lover, brother," probably dim. of M.H.G. buole "brother," of uncertain origin (cf. Ger. buhle "lover"). Meaning deteriorated 17c. through "fine fellow," "blusterer," to "harasser of the weak" (1653). Perhaps this was by infl. of bull, but a connecting sense between "lover" and "ruffian" may be in "protector of a prostitute," which was one sense of bully (though not specifically attested until 1706). The verb is first attested 1710. The expression meaning "worthy, jolly, admirable" (esp. in 1864 U.S. slang bully for you!) is first attested 1681, and preserves an earlier, positive sense of the word.

Brother Jonathan
sobriquet for "United States," 1816, is often derived from Jonathan Trumbull (1740-1809) of Connecticut, who was often called Brother Jonathan by George Washington, who often sought his advice, somehow in ref. to 2 Sam i.26.

Seems brothers....there are sisters.

sister
O.E. sweostor, swuster, or a Scand. cognate (cf. O.N. systir, Swed. sister, Dan. søster), in either case from P.Gmc. *swestr- (cf. O.S. swestar, O.Fris. swester, M.Du. suster, Du. zuster, O.H.G. swester, Ger. Schwester, Goth. swistar), from PIE *swesor, one of the most persistent and unchanging PIE root words, recognizable in almost every modern I.E. language (cf. Skt. svasar-, Avestan shanhar-, L. soror, O.C.S., Rus. sestra, Lith. sesuo, O.Ir. siur, Welsh chwaer, Gk. eor). Probably from PIE roots *swe- "one's own" + *ser- "woman." For vowel evolution, see bury. Used of nuns in O.E.; of a woman in general from 1906; of a black woman from 1926; and in the sense of "fellow feminist" from 1912.

sorority
1532, "body of women united for some purpose," from M.L. sororitas "sisterhood, of or pertaining to sisters," from L. soror "sister" (see sister). OED 2nd ed. lists first reference for sense of "women's society in a college or university" as c.1900, but they existed at least 20 years before this.

Cleopatra
common name of sister-queens in Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. The name is Gk., probably meaning "key to the fatherland," from khleis "key" + patris. The famous queen was the seventh of that name.

Mary
fem. proper name, O.E. Maria, Marie, "mother of Jesus," from L. Maria, from Gk. Mariam, Maria, from Aram. Maryam, from Heb. Miryam, sister of Moses (Ex. xv.), of unknown origin, said to mean lit. "rebellion." Nursery rhyme "Mary had a Little Lamb" written early 1830 by Sarah Josepha Hale of Boston; published Sept. 1830 in "Juvenile Miscellany," a popular magazine for children. Mary Jane is 1921 as the proprietary name of a kind of low-heeled shoe worn chiefly by young girls, 1928 as slang for marijuana.

cousin
1160, from O.Fr. cosin, from L. consobrinus "mother's sister's child," from com- "together" + sobrinus (earlier *sosrinos) "cousin on mother's side," from soror (gen. sororis) "sister." Used familiarly as a term of address since 1430, especially in Cornwall. Your first cousin (also cousin-german) is the son or daughter of an uncle or aunt; your children and your first cousin's are second cousins to one another; to you, your first cousin's children are first cousin once removed. Phrase kissing cousin is Southern U.S. expression, 1940s, denoting "those close enough to be kissed in salutation;" Kentish cousin (1796) is an old British term for "distant relative."

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll pin my baseline assumptions on the universal declaration of human rights

(link is not in original)

Well that's settled then. So can we get on with the job of trying to safeguard human rights and strenghten our crumbling democricies without fighting over the evils of religion?

We have a stick that we can use to take the measure both theists and non-theists. Let's use it and let the chips fall where they may.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

We have a stick that we can use to take the measure both theists and non-theists. Let's use it and let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah! But now I'm finding myself questioning the declaration. My emphasis:

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The highlighted part means: no knocking those below you; and no knocking those above you. I get the first reading, but the second--it depends on what they're doing...

These are just tweaks, though, and it's a human document--a declaration by humans, infallible as we all are, sorry I mean fallible--

fallible
c.1412, from M.L. fallibilis "liable to err, deceitful." lit. "that can be deceived," from L. fallere "deceive."

...but yeah, a document worth discussing--analysing like those scholars do with religious texts. Look at the history, the words, the constructs--is it any good? Who (if anyone) swears allegiance to it? What have been its effects on law?

(! Maybe I mean--and agree with you who stated it!--that behaviour is more important than the ideas that justify it--or even cause it; because behaviour is where we edge towards agreement--what's intollerable? Being constantly shouted at. Being ignored by everyone. The sciatica. The sound of the wind through the orchard--it moans!

Basic respect--we fail but if our aim is to understand--

respect (n.)
c.1300, from L. respectus "regard," lit. "act of looking back at one," pp. of respicere "look back at, regard, consider," from re- "back" + specere "look at" (see scope (1)). The verb is 1542, from the noun. Meaning "treat with deferential regard or esteem" is from 1560; respectable "worthy of respect" is from 1586 (implied in respected).
"I have certainly known more men destroyed by the desire to have wife and child and to keep them in comfort than I have seen destroyed by drink and harlots." [William Butler Yeats, "Autobiography"]

My word!

And for nanne, who typed longly!, a double bill flip--the same song, different words (but some are the same!)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Archs, Edges (none / 1)

Thanks, rg

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 04:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well that's settled then. So can we get on with the job of trying to safeguard human rights and strenghten our crumbling democricies without fighting over the evils of religion?

I'm not going to shut up quite yet. BritGuy misses an important link in the following comment posted elsewhere in this thread:

The dominant mythology of today isn't Christianity, it's Neo-liberal fundamentalism. The neo-libs are far more dangerous than the fundies. They have far more media leverage, their mythology is so widespread and pervasive it has started to appear inevitable, and - unlike the fundies, who are merely robotic and rather stupid - the neo-libs have the potential to completely obliterate any trace of Enlightenment values. If not worse.
If he wants a target to rail against, he should attack the organ grinder, not the monkey. Because without funding and a supportive media climate, the Religious Right would fade away within a decade or two, especially if distracted with a few scandals - not hard to find, I'd guess - and some competing narratives.

I don't think neoliberal fundamentalism could have caught on in a society that does not believe in the concept of "personal responsibility" in the way that America does. It's extremely damaging because it obliterates the concept of society (in exactly the fashion Thatcher put it). I don't know that religious institutions created this concept in its modern form (I honestly have no idea) but the church certainly functions as a wellspring for it today. At a level down from this concept, the guilt and learned helplessness taught by religious institutions certainly allows neoliberal fundamentalism to flourish. Guilt can be harnessed to drive deference, and those stuck in the learned helplessness rut require a leader. The neoliberals simply swoop in and install themselves as the ministers representing god in the material world. Not altogether different from England taking over India - they simply installed themselves at the top of the caste system. Much of the work was already done for them.

There are reasons to want to submit to authority - see Escape from Freedom for example - with our finite minds we all have a point at which we must defer to concepts and assumptions developed by others. Guilt and learned helplessness drive this further, though, at the cultural level, and thus artificially lower the point at which we are willing to submit to the assumptions and concepts of others. These concepts are what need to be eliminated.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 07:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

TBG's point, if I may be so bold as to distill it for him, is that evangelical Christianity has been co-opted by Straussian neoliberal neoconservatism (heh...) like a cheap hooker. I don't think he ignores the fact that the two have interests in common.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In my opinion christianity in general, not just the evangelicals, has been hijacked, which is an important distinction from TBG's claims. That the religious right is a bunch of dumb robots is almost beside the point - the neoliberals couldn't have taken control as they have without the social structures of the sort that religious institutions provide. As long as these social structures exist, we'll be at the mercy of whatever ideology is promoted by the top.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 12:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have read your post several times, and at some point you loose me. Perhaps this question may be an answer to the heart of your post: Why has Canada not succumbed to either neoliberal fundamentalism, or fundamentalist Christianity in the same way the US has? Traditionally, Canada has had stronger religious ties than the US. Currently it has weaker ties. I.e. - the reasons that the US has gone in the direction it has is not because of religion - though there were plenty of church leaders who were on the bandwagon as it pulled out of the station. My feeling is that we are witnessing at least two failures - one of democracy, and one of a lack of understanding of what the role of government is. I.e.: Libertarian policy leads to immoral behaviours. It is not the role of government to run at a profit or serve business. It is the role of government to serve the people. Traditionally, church and government have been synonymous. Churches are quite able to fill the role of serving the people when the government fails to do so. (Though not nearly to the same level of quality that a government can.) Perhaps you could call both of these examples of learned helplessness. You probably could call the response to Libertarian philosophy - church run social services - further reinforcing learned helplessness - especially with the poor and sick.

-----------------------------------------------------------

First, there is no such animal as "the church". It is but a dream in a theocrat's eye right now. Plenty of blood spilt to end that idea.

Second - and this is just a hunch - guilt and learned helplessness probably do not usually go well together with support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When you speak of guilt, I am guessing you are speaking of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that their stand on Homosexuality would fairly clearly violate the spirit of the declaration. It may, depending on interpretation, violate the letter of the document. Of course, individual Catholics may or may not be in support of the universal Declaration of Human Rights. When we measure, we are not limited to aye or nay.

At some point you are just going to have to call it a day and accept that your measuring tool may not be perfect. The question is, is it good enough? Of course you can look at other tools as well. Some may in some ways make stronger statements than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One example would be the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It, unlike the UDHR is quite explicit on the rights of Homosexuals. If you feel it important to examine the role of learned helplessness within Christianity, or any other religion, then do so. Don't limit yourself to religion, and do not fall into the trap of assuming one-size fits all. Personally I think that one can get unnecessarily complicated and loose sight of the forest for the trees.

If we are speaking about the attempt at making the US into a theocracy - there is no need to worry how they will measure up on the UDHR. The question is, do they support any of it?

As far as the rest of it goes: Use the measuring stick and see what you get. It seems to me that in general the UDHR tends to support positions that are farther, not closer, to learned helplessness.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 08:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why has Canada not succumbed to either neoliberal fundamentalism, or fundamentalist Christianity in the same way the US has?

Hard to say. The stakes are lower in Canada from the point of view of those who think in terms of power, as Canada doesn't have the power that the US does.

However, fundamentalism has nothing to do with it. Guilt and learned helplessness are part of the christian experience with few exceptions. (I'll also reduce my use of the term "the church" to christianity. I don't know enough about any other religions to say either way.)

At some point you are just going to have to call it a day and accept that your measuring tool may not be perfect. The question is, is it good enough? Of course you can look at other tools as well. Some may in some ways make stronger statements than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One example would be the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It, unlike the UDHR is quite explicit on the rights of Homosexuals. If you feel it important to examine the role of learned helplessness within Christianity, or any other religion, then do so. Don't limit yourself to religion, and do not fall into the trap of assuming one-size fits all. Personally I think that one can get unnecessarily complicated and loose sight of the forest for the trees.

Your assumption of a complete lack of nuance on my part is telling.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 11:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your assumption of a complete lack of nuance on my part is telling.

If that is true, then sorry. Still I note that you are saying "Christianity". There is no "one church" in Christianity either. No, you do not have a complete lack of nuance, but when it comes to Christianity, there are mighty few shades of gray. You do recognize that there may be a few exceptions to your idea of guilt and learned helplessness.

As long as you define Christianity as effectively evil, you will have accomplished nothing but to engage in the politics of guilt. Measure and prove. Compare to other aspects of society. What is good? What is bad? Is it true that modern Protestantism is based on guilt and learned helplessness or has Protestantism (and no, there is not a "Protestant church" either.) changed as society has changed? My impression in Canada is that it is not the same as when I was growing up. Even while growing up, Christianity was not monolithic. I was involved in advocating for an end to religious public schools. The group of people who were most interested were Christians. (With some notable exceptions like Unitarians.) Christians were divided on the issue. In general we received the most support and the most opposition from Christians. This included all political parties. Bluntly, some Christian churches were significantly more progressive and more supportive of my rights as an atheist than any of the political parties and society at large.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Christianity isn't evil. Like i said a few posts up, I think the social structures it tends to create leaves people more prone to being controlled by others. That's a shortcoming, not a display of evilness.

Bluntly, some Christian churches were significantly more progressive and more supportive of my rights as an atheist than any of the political parties and society at large.

This isn't about religion vs. everything else. Political parties are self-interested in power, they won't represent the people's interests unless the people demand it firmly. Churches still provide some sense of community which the rest of society has done away with. Secular society needs to recreate this.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I suspect that we really do need more community in society, so I am certainly with you in helping to foster a greater sense of community.

Ok sorry for being slow on the uptake: Does Christianity leave people more prone to being controlled?

Very quickly, I can say yes and no to both of these and can come up with examples of specific sects or individuals to match.

Now what? Perhaps we may wish to compare it to other aspects of society and see if a particular Christian sect is contributing to greater freedom and less control compared to some other social institution or group. Still where does that leave us?

We still have a huge number of unanswered questions - such as what is the role of religion? How does religion work? What is religion? How is religion changing over time? How do religion and social attitudes feed off one another?

Let's assume you have managed to prove your point - which I do not think you will be able to do - then what? Almost any form of direct intervention will create helplessnesses and victimization.

It seems to me to be far easier to work on social policies that increase the level of freedom that people have. Universal medical care, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and so on. These are the things that have caused religious membership to drop like a stone in Canada. Let's continue along the same line. Let's support free daycare, free dental care, higher baby bonuses, longer maternity and paternity leave, free university education and so on. Internationally, lets support peace initiatives and fair treatment for oppressed people in the third world. And yes, lets support community growth at home.

Not only that, but you can get some Canadian Christians to help you put forward these policies - especially the more left wing groups. Church antecedence has been dropping like a stone. An yet, they will work hard to implement social changes that will further decrease their numbers. It seems to me to be a win-win situation where the question of does Christianity contribute to being controlled becomes a complete non-issue.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Planned or unplanned, all parents 'indoctrinate' their children
How we learn is almost a taboo subject.

Right, and you've demonstrated why these taboos need to be broken down. "People are going to do X anyway" is not acceptable view in a modern society.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way.. i want yout o answetrthat directly. When I mention that it seems you take things personally is always in a direct answer to a sentence which is directly offensive to me. If you do not make any sentence with any directr personal attack I never suppose that your feelings are hurt.

i frankly can not udnerstand how someone can attack anotehr person and insult him if there is nothing personal involve, specially with name-calling.

I am asking you kindly in those instances to refrain from personal attack, that's all :)

Sorry if it sounded pa<tronizing.. but it was my guess. <br> Then why do you use offensive wordings in your comment?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:21:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I tried being polite with you - but, after lots of bad arguments and careless accusations, patience wears thin. Thus you moved from insulting Dawkins in a crude way (what do you have against him "personally"?) - you modified it to "he's a very, very, very bad scientist." Am I supposed to treat remarks like that politely ? A merely very bad scientist makes errors in routine procedures in his own area - he doesn't develop new ideas which prompt debate which goes on for thirty years (whether finally right or wrong) - nor does he get get elected to the Royal Institution. Argue sensibly, provide some evidence and your views will be dealt with politely.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:13:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

While I do not know about the appropriateness of exposing Children to fire and brimstone sermons on a daily or even weekly basis, note that Dawkins makes a sweeping statement about all of Christianity. He's doing more than putting these two concepts in the same room, too. He's making a claim of moral equivalency.

This is a fantastic, feel good statement written for people terrified by atheists, and framing this in terms of punishment verifies exactly which audience this article was written for. Sexual abuse is rightly punished by jail time, but to throw an entire culture in jail for their standard practices? Madness.

TNR does not write for people who are terrified by atheists, generally. You should try reading the complete piece. It's quite friendly to secularism.

Anyway, society has seen fit to throw people in jail over common practices of all kinds (prostitution, drugs, alcohol at some point). This derives from the puritan ethic, in a non-religious sense, the striving for purity, and I see quite a bit of that in Dawkins' expression of atheism.

Now...

Fear is a component of why people believe in X, and it it undermines this argument:

Contrary to what Dawkins thinks, religious belief is not perpetuated by infection and incapacitation of the intellect.
Pascal's wager is a powerful artificial viral tool.

It is primarily perpetuated by perpetuating the institutions of religious belief. That, I would guess, is mainly a story of power and social control.
You are describing inertia, not origin.

Religion is, by and large, inertia. Few people are voluntarily and spontaneously converted. Pascal's wager, for that matter, is just a curious intellectual exercise to someone whose mind has not already been imprinted with vivid images of hell.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 04:40:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

While I do not know about the appropriateness of exposing Children to fire and brimstone sermons on a daily or even weekly basis, note that Dawkins makes a sweeping statement about all of Christianity.

This is hardly a major plank of his general argument (critics hunt around for excuses for attack), but, for the record, his point about labelling children applies to all religions.

This derives from the puritan ethic, in a non-religious sense, the striving for purity, and I see quite a bit of that in Dawkins' expression of atheism.

Easy to allege, again, this would carry some weight if you actually gave some (one) examples. There's a difference between purity and clarity or trying to argue consistently. But - if that's what you're reduced to trying to pick on ... :-)

Religion is, by and large, inertia.

And various things can jerk them out of it - including books, even very challenging ones - see the feedback on his site.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 06:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is hardly a major plank of his general argument (critics hunt around for excuses for attack), but, for the record, his point about labelling children applies to all religions.

Not all critics are alike :-)

As for the 'purity' part I note that Dawkins seems at pains to also make arguments against moderate believers who support secularism, and seems to feel that grave injustices are being done when a six year old visits a generic Catholic nun once a week.

But that is how it appears to me. It may just be a set of happy little accidents.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But YOU as critic picked on this minor point - as elsewhere - longer reply coming :-)

His criticism of moderate Christians isn't "puritanism"; it's a quite logical and important argument - which you didn't seem to quite get (he wasn't saying the moderates teach the extremists), that they make relying on faith seem respectable, but it isn't, and in extreme cases it leads to extreme violence - also justified by faith.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Jan 26th, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I share his concern/outrage that young children are subjected to indoctrination which typically includes ideas about eternal punishment in hell for quite normal human behaviour - which can easily lead to the kind of nightmares from similar indocrination which MillMan suffered as a child. I'm surprised it doesn't concern you too.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Jan 26th, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did domeone say eternal punishment?

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Sat Jan 26th, 2008 at 11:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What bothers me is that neither you nor MillMan nor Dawkins have done a review of how religion is generally brought across to children. Your statement of what is 'typical' is rather empty in that respect.

I stated to MillMan that I think giving a young child daily or even weekly brim and firestone lectures is unhealthy.

Exposing a child to the mere concept of eternal damnation is not a whole lot more damaging than exposing a child to the concept of absolute death. Or the boogeyman. What matters is how the idea is brought across, not the idea itself.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 27th, 2008 at 12:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's funny how you find so many minor things to criticise about Dawkins - still not having read the book apparently - but any excuse to pardon Christians. Isn't the idea of Hell a key part of christianity - and isn't it eternal punishment there? How many kids terrified by this absurd idea (organised by a loving god) would be too many for you? See also turambar's link.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Jan 27th, 2008 at 07:50:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]