Final phase of atheist bus campaign

[RockinSockBunnies]

So, I've just read this latest installment about the atheist bus campaign here.

Now, I'm a Christian, we go to church, DD is baptised, so obviously I'm not going to be impartial. But there point of the poster campaign seems somewhat flawed. How are children going to grow up and suddenly decide which (if any) religion they adhere to, if they've had no real exposure to any of the various religions during their upbringing?

Unless you have parents who are willing to learn the fundamental points of each and every faith, take the children to the places of worship of these faiths, whilst also discussing the concepts of atheism, then how on earth is a child going to be able to decide for themselves what they believe in once they're older?

I was an atheist for around fifteen years, but when I went back to Christianity I had the basic knowledge and understanding of the faith from attending church and Sunday School as a child. How can anyone make a real decision about religion if they're denied the opportunity to learn as a child?

This atheist bus thing is so embarrassing.

Everyone brings up their children to believe what they themselves believe. Obviously. And a child that is being taught the usual concepts of right and wrong but outside a named faith like Islam or Christianity is being brought up as a humanist, which is no more neutral a position than any other, however natural it feels to those who find it reflects their own beliefs. You can't avoid indoctrinating your children one way or another, unless you deny them access to language altogether. This campaign is just encouraging people to indoctrinate their children in liberal humanism (the sensible shoe of philosophical positions) and furthermore to accept it as to neutral and right to warrant a label.

However, I'm mightily pissed off that my own humanist child can't go to her local RC school. So if they want drop all the bollocks and just focus on admissions policies then I'm right behind them.

Yes I sort of agree with that ZD and have struggled with the knowledge that we are doing as much passive indoctrination as anyone else.

I don't find the campaign embarrassing, I find it quite uplifting that we live in a time when it can cause small ripples but nothing more.

I think it's pretty insulting to imply that people won't make their own minds up if they're brought up by religious parents. I don't know any adults, religious or otherwise, who are unable to make up their own minds about things.

But is it not curious that if someone picks a religion the chances are it will be the same religion as that followed by his/her parents?

It's more the damage that some outlooks can do to a young person's sense of self/self esteem etc.

It's not just religion, any didactic upbringing can do the same (personally I had rather a miserable upbringing with a lot of "you are no better than anyone else" and "remember your roots, remember where you came from" and it has had an effect on me, though tbh that is a hangover from Scottish Presbyterianism imo).

There are copious outpourings of unhappiness associated with religious upbringings - granted not likely to be the sort of CofE, mellow, inclusive experience (CofS was a different matter). Plenty of people do go through very hard times where they lose their faith, and have to learn how to question everything, not just the existence of a god but the trustworthiness, maybe vulnerability, of their family, the whole experience of their childhood.

Of course it will be down to family circumstances and personalities but it's not insulting or inaccurate to say that a religious upbringing CAN cause pain in later life, and that people DO have to learn how to question things - a cursory google will tell you this.

I mean, I once spent a week with a lovely, lovely friend of mine who happens to be a Baptist, and it drove me literally to tears. If you have had a lifetime of such a world-view and come to question it later in life, I can only imagine how hard that must be.

I've always loved this Einstein quote:

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

I mean, it's so simple when put like that.

UQD: Why do you think Dawkins is considered 'strident' and embarassing etc. when people like Russell (who said the same thing, only more coherently) were/are greatly respected?

ZD

I have tryed so hard very hard not to bring my dd's up with any knowledge of what I believe.

dd2 has belonged to a church youth group and visited church with school. dd1 has visited church with brownies and I just keep stum. When I was younger i choose to try the methodist church as a 7-8 year old. I also tryed out CofE

i had no idea then whay my own parents beleived, I knew they didn't go to church but they never stopped me.

No doubt if Russell had started opining about matters of biology he would have been as embarrassing as Dawkins is when he wades into philosophical territory.

That Einstein quote does create a lovely rosy glow. But ironically the places where sympathy and social ties are most actively and systematically promoted are churches, mosques etc. Where else would you go on a regular basis and be exhorted to love and forgive one another, think of the poor, sick, war-torn etc, give to charity according to your means and generally think about how to be a good person? (Apart from the BBC of course)

Really Ivykaty? What beliefs do you feel you are keeping from her?

ZD: Maybe the Guardian?

Well yes of course that goes without saying, MP.

(I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had sometime about the extent to which the media has replaced religion in many of its traditional roles eg creating moral consensus through story, ritual etc.)

The Accord Coalition is calling for reform of faith schools admission criteria

Yes. I'm signed up already.

Dawkins is usually only considered "strident" because people don't like what he is saying. It's a well-known rhetorical word for making the argument "ad hominem" when it can't be won any other way. I agree he can be a little tetchy, but he is not exactly unprovoked. I mean, seriously, some of the crap he has to put up with...

Amused, as ever, by the idea that these "scientist" types should not "stray into philosophy". Yes, keep them in their nice little labs doing their little experiments. Pat, pat.

I can't think why that would amuse you. Science and philosophy are very different disciplines. Dawkins is a brilliant scientist but a poor philosopher.

UQD Can you explain why philosophers don't like what Dawkins is saying, when they were quite happy with what Russell was saying?

Or as Terry Eagleton puts it:

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

I remember when I was about 13 and discovered Desmond Morris.... it's a similar thing. People saying "Aha! Dawkins says blah blah blah" are basically a teenage ME saying to my biologist uncle "... and it's so amazing that breasts are basically buttocks!"

Terry Eagleton has a massive chip on his shoulder about Dawkins. He's not exactly going to be impartial.

What level of study of theology is one required to have before one can write a book? GCSE? A-Level? OK, now what level of study of science is one required to have before one can pontificate about how the world was made?

Flippant answer: scientists will shut up about religion when the religious shut up about science.

Serious answer? Disciplines do not exist in little boxes. Nobody has a go at Jeremy Paxman for writing a book on the English when he is not a historian, or Martin Bell for being an MP when his previous experience was as a reporter, or Richard Curtis for writing for Doctor Who when he has never written sci-fi before, or Stephen Fry for being an actor, a comedian, a writer and a panel-show host.

But all these attempts to try to trap me into defending something Dawkins says in a particular way, so that you can then slide in the next piece of your jigsaw-puzzle, are all a bit tedious.

Doesn't anybody else like the simple truth and beauty of the Einstein quote?

Einstein quote is very nice.

Yes I already said I liked it.

Why does Terry Eagleton have a chip on his shoulder about Dawkins?

Not sure what you mean about the jigsaw puzzle. I have no interest in trapping anyone into anything. I just can't see how the right response to Creationists and other literal-minded religious types should be to take an equally obtuse stance on the other side. It just isn't very productive.

And, re Terry Eagleton, I don't think there is any such thing as "impartial" in this debate. How could there be? There are only stronger or weaker arguments.

Well, he's going to be annoyed that Dawkins had trodden on what he sees as "his" territory. He should surely be equally annoyed that the religious tread on the "territory" of science, if we are going to start marking it out like that, with frightening regularity.

It's just that every time something comes up about Prof Dawkins, whether I raise him or not, people seem to think I have to explain him - as if they are waiting to see if I slip up, like on some sort of intellectual "You've Been Framed". I'm not some kind of Dawkins apologist. He defends himself far better than I or anyone else could (even to the extent of predicting the objections people would have to his book and addressing them).

Dawkins isn't a "brilliant" scientist! He was good in his day and he has contributed, but he's always been (ironically) a better communicator than anything else.

But he's no Galileo!