Beyond Belief: Carolyn Porco On Science & Religion, Part 1 (video)
Beyond Belief: Carolyn Porco On Science & Religion, Part 2 (video)
Beyond Belief: Carolyn Porco On Science & Religion, Part 3 (video)
At the Beyond Belief seminar Carolyn Porco, an astronomer, presented her views on science v religion .. and some amazing photos of the universe.
This has been a big year for so many people across many fields, but in the field of religion, ethics and ideas, this is one man's year. Like him or loathe him, people are talking about him and his ideas. We recognise Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, as our Person of the Year 2006. This year also marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of his book The Selfish Gene. To some he's "Darwin's rottweiller" (echoing TH Huxley's nickname, "Darwin's bulldog"); to others he's "A Devil's Chaplain" (Darwin's phrase, now the title of one of Dawkins's books). You have voted overwhelmingly for Dawkins, and for many conflicting reasons:
For being everywhere this year, with the publication of his global bestseller, The God Delusion.
For proving that scientists can still change the way people think.
For writing a book (The God Delusion) which enabled Terry Eagleton to write the most negative review ever published.
For thinking clearly in a world that doesn't much value cear thinking anymore.
For saying what he thinks.
For defending the delusion that science and religious faith are incompatible.
For creating the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science.
For writing the most overrated book of the year (in the judgment of Prospect magazine).
For making people talk about the dangers of religious fundamentalism.
For lobbying atheism and humanism into the headlines more than anyone else has done before.
For being the face of science on television across the western world.
For not having been given an honour by the Queen, while being a recipient of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic and many scientific and literary prizes.
For marrying the actress who played Romana in Doctor Who.
For raising questions that need to be answered by any intelligent religious believer wishing to develop a coherent worldview.
For being a scientific fundamentalist and the worst advert for atheism currently doing a book tour.
For raising a debate about the nature of "science" and how future generations of schoolchildren should be pretected from "pseudo-science".
For being rude and getting away with it.
For these, and many other reasons, Richard Dawkins is our Person of the Year 2006.
Reposted by Chris Street from: http://richarddawkins.net
Reposted from: http://www.pandasthumb.org
Those of you who have been watching the blogs over the last few days know that a kerfluffle has gone on about Richard Dawkins's position on religion and religious freedom. Basically, Dawkins signed this scary-sounding petition,
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.
More Details: In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.
Submitted by Jamie Wallis
it was linked from the Intelligent Design blog that likes to think the worst about Dawkins freaked out, Ed Brayton freaked out because the plain reading of the petition (to American ears; see below) seemed anti-civil liberties, then PZ Myers freaked out in reaction to Ed, etc., etc. PZ did helpfully get some clarification from Dawkins, who then retracted his signature of the petition, but the disavowal didn't cover the issues of whether or not the government should prevent parents from giving their children religious instruction, leading to yet more thinking of the worst on the ID blogs and yet more confusion in the comments on the blogs of PZ and Ed.
Well, I know that it is far more fun to spend endless threads bickering about what Richard Dawkins probably meant and whether or not it is good or evil, but as PZ noted, it really is better to email the guy. We can't blame Ed for not doing so, because the petition had a clear meaning on its face. But it seemed to me that the problem was that the petition meant very different things in British vs. American contexts. I sent my hypothesis to Dawkins and he has confirmed it; I comment a bit more at the bottom.
From: Richard Dawkins
Subject: Re: Clarification on religion petition?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:52:30 +0000
To: Nick Matzke matzkeATncseweb.org
On 31 Dec 2006, at 03:20, Nick Matzke wrote:
Dear Dr. Dawkins,
I have observed the kerfluffle surrounding the petition to the PM and your retraction of it on Ed Brayton's blog. I think part of what is going on is that Americans interpret the petition language
as a proposed universal statue [sci – "statute"] statute applying even to private communications in the home, parents taking children to church, etc. – whereas the petition, although poorly worded, was actually aimed at restricting the British government's promotion of religion in the government schools. The first would be a major violation of standard constitutional rights (in the U.S.) which makes people freak out; whereas the second is just a quite reasonable request to move the UK closer to the US position of strong church-state separation.
If you have half a second I would like to get your answer and post it on the Panda's Thumb blog (www.pandasthumb.org). It may seem silly, but this would avoid endless misrepresentation of your views on this point by creationists and others. So here goes:
1. Is my above understanding correct, i.e., that you read the petition in the second sense that I described?
Yes. In my all too cursory reading of the petition (if I had read the whole thing more carefully, I would have noticed the coercive phraseology and would not have signed it) I of course assumed that it referred to schools, not parents in the privacy of the home. I am sure that was also the intention of the petition organizer. The very idea of giving that control freak Tony Blair any more power over people than he already has appals me, and probably appals the author of the petition too. The problem in Britain is that Blair and his colleagues are hell bent on increasing the influence of religion in British schools. I want to reduce the power of religion in the schools. Blair wants to increase it. I now see that, since the petition lamentably failed to mention that it referred to schools, it can all too easily be read as an attempt to expand government power beyond the schools and into the home.
Incidentally, another reason why I would not have signed, if I had read the supporting statement as well as the petition itself, is that I am positively in favour of two aspects of religious education. I advocate teaching the Bible as literature. And I advocate teaching comparative religion as an important anthropological phenomenon. Schools should teach: 'Christians believe X, Muslims believe Y, Buddhists believe Z.' But a teacher should never say something like 'You are a Christian child and we Christians believe …'
2. Obviously you are opposed to theism and think it is harmful. But do you actually think it would be a good idea for a government to make it *illegal* for parents to teach their religion to their children? (e.g., taking them to church, sending them to Sunday school, giving them private religious instruction, etc.)
Of course I don't think it would be a good idea. I am horrified by the thought. My entire campaign against the labelling of children (what the petition called 'defining' children) by the religion of their parents has been a campaign of CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING. I want to educate people so that they flinch when they hear a phrase like 'Catholic child' or 'Muslim child' – just as feminists have taught us to wince when we hear 'one man one vote'. But that is consciousness-raising, not legislation. No feminist that I would wish to know ever suggested a legal ban on masculine pronouns. And of course I don't want to make it illegal to use religious labels for children. I want to raise consciousness, so that the phrase 'Christian child' sounds like a fingernail scraping on a blackboard. But if I dislike the use of religious words to label children, I dislike even more the idea that governments should police the words that anybody uses about anything. I don't want a legal ban on the use of words like nigger and yid. I want people to feel ashamed of using them. Similarly, I want people to feel ashamed of using the phrase 'Christian child', but I don't want to make it illegal to use it.
Also please let me know if I may post your answer on the Panda's Thumb blog.
Yes, you may post this entire e-mail, and I hope you will include your own admirably clear introduction.
By the way, Ed Brayton himself made the same point very clearly during the exchanges on his blog:"If the petition was specific to what could and could not be taught in government-fun [presumably government-run] and financed schools, I would absolutely be in favor of it. But the text never mentions schools or government indoctrination, it says that the government would make it illegal to "indoctrinate" any child, which would include their parents advocating and teaching their own religion as well. That is my objection to it. If it only dealt with what schools could teach, I would be all for it."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2006 01:07 PM
Bloody hell! All that storm in a teacup for nothing! If only the petition had been worded properly in the first place … And if only I had read it more carefully … And if only Brayton had read it more charitably … No wonder lawyers and diplomats need special training. I'm out of my depth here.
Richard Dawkins
Thanks so much for your time,
Nick Matzke
----------------------------------
So, hopefully that answers all of the outstanding questions about Richard Dawkins's committment to religious freedom, and those who desire can get back to discussing his actual views on science and/or religion.
A final comment: It is commonly said that the U.S. and the U.K. are divided by a common language, and I think we have a strong case of that here, particularly with the legal/political context that can be put behind the very same words. To Americans, where there is no established church, and separation of church and state is rigorously maintained, any mention that indoctrinating or labeling children by their religion should be "illegal" seems like it must be advocating a massive intrusion of governmental power into the home. But in the UK, there is an established state church, religion is taught in the government schools, and, I gather, parents have to check boxes on tax forms and school forms to classify their children as Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc., and tax revenue and religion courses are alotted on this basis. Protesting this elaborate system of official government classification of children to the British Prime Minister is quite reasonable, particularly for a guy like Dawkins.
I think some cultural background that contributed to this confusion is found in the fact that Americans tend to be extremely litigious and view any particular activity as either (a) illegal and absolutely forbidden or (b) an absolute civil right and therefore completely without restriction of any sort. This is so natural that Americans don't even realize that their way of thinking is peculiar unless they have spent a significant amount of time overseas.
Examples include:
* Private property: In the U.S., public land is public and private property is private and usually absolutely forbidden to the public. But in many other countries (like New Zealand and probably most of the British commonwealth) private land is often open to the public by default for hiking etc. It is quite clear that the British position is more rational and civilized, but for whatever reason Americans prefer to guard their private land with shotguns as if their lives depended on keeping everyone else off.
* Alcohol: In the U.S., alcohol is absolutely forbidden until the late age of 21, at which point you are suddenly given a license to get schnokered at will without restriction, which many people do. In many European countries, alcohol is served to teenagers in moderate amounts, and a culture of moderation limits binge drinking.
* Public/private schools: In the U.S., public schools are rigorously made to adhere to the Constitution and the state science standards, whereas private schools can usually teach whatever they want; other countries do things in very different ways.
* Finally, we have the religious establishment difference discussed above where the U.S. really is rather radical even compared with most other industrialized democracies (many of which have state churches and government-sponsored religious education).
For extra fun and confusion, in the U.K., the "private" "state" schools are run by the government and the "public" schools are privately funded. "Common language," indeed.
(* Note: see comments for clarification on the not-so-clear terminology in various parts of the UK)
***********
2. Comment #15573 by Donald on January 1, 2007 at 11:39 am
I don't know what to make of this. I had thought Richard opposed religious indoctrination of children, and had described it as child abuse. If it is child abuse then petitioning for it to be made illegal makes sense (although unrealistic in the sweeping form of that petition). However, from the above, it seems it is only the labelling that Richard is campaigning against, not the indoctrination.
Perhaps we need more clarification on "indoctrination" as well. To me it means teaching dubious beliefs AS FACT when the recipient is either too young to judge for themselves, or has been placed in a vulnerable state of mind by psychological techniques.
3. Comment #15583 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 1, 2007 at 12:32 pm
What concerns me is whether faith is "abusive" to children as it is irrational, and teaching children faith-based ideas is no different from having them grow up to believe the world is flat. Is it abuse to teach children in a cult that they must serve their charismatic cult leader or God will kill their family? Is it abusive to let children grow up and be subject only to Scientologist education?
Do parents and other authority, simply put, have the right to feed children what a rational mind would find to be patent nonsense?
If it is, does that mean religion should be included as abuse? It is probably not possible or desirable to make it illegal, but it's something to ponder.
8. Comment #15626 by Anat on January 1, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Galactic Lord Xenu posted: What concerns me is whether faith is "abusive" to children as it is irrational, and teaching children faith-based ideas is no different from having them grow up to believe the world is flat. Is it abuse to teach children in a cult that they must serve their charismatic cult leader or God will kill their family? Is it abusive to let children grow up and be subject only to Scientologist education?
------
There are many forms of childrearing that fail to prepare children for life in the greater society they may find themselves in adulthood. In Israel children of Haredi families hardly receive any education in basic secular areas such as mathematics, geography, science, foreign language, beyond the level of 4th-5th grade. Young adults who want to leave this environment have a huge problem with lack of job skills. OTOH for 2 or 3 generations children raised collectively on Israeli kibbutzim were ill-prepared for more typical family life. How do we balance people's freedom to explore different ways of life with the rights of children not to be forced out of mainstream society?
9. Comment #15629 by Jack Rawlinson on January 1, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Interesting. I need to revisit the wording of that petition. I signed it, because I didn't see anything controversial. Perhaps I was hasty. I certainly don't think we can - or should - make it illegal for parents to tell their kids lies. I saw it as a request to make it illegal to teach religious beliefs as fact in schools. I also saw it as an attack on so-called faith schools, and I support that. A school whose raison d'etre includes the promotion of religious belief and to inculcate its pupils with that belief should be banned. However, if Richard saw fit to withdraw his signature there's clearly a problem with the wording.
11. Comment #15653 by JohnC on January 1, 2007 at 10:04 pm
The entire affair throws into relief some interesting issues:
1. A number of us have from time to time commented on the fact that RD displays a certain political naivety, often shared by his most enthusiastic admirers. He now charmingly confirms this impression: "I'm out of my depth here." There is nothing wrong with this, and he is clearly comfortable with making his main contribution in the world of ideas rather than political strategies. Everyone should keep this in mind, not just with the education issue but also when reflecting on his views on, for instance, religious moderates.
2. On the other hand I would regard his comments about what he meant by "consciousness-raising" as particularly politically acute. The point is about changing the topography of what is socially acceptable. And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that even religiously inclined parents can come to recognise the wisdom of a living pluralism in their child-rearing.
3. One person's indoctrination is another person's socialisation. In Australia (and elsewhere) the Catholic Church runs a large network of schools that since the 1960s here have received some government funding. Many parents send their children to these not for the religious component but because they believe such schools are better at inculcating values such as "respect for your elders", "concern for the poor". When I asked my 16yo's half-brother, who goes to such a school, whether he believed any of the religious doctrine to which he was regularly exposed, he looked at me as if I had just gone temporarily mad. "Of course not," he sneered with adolescent contempt.
4. Nonethess, such schools are obviously a major transmission belt for religious fantasy, and government funding would be simple illegal in the US. On the other hand, in Australia where private schools do receive funding there are very tight guidelines about the curriculum that is taught, and there is generally not a problem about the subversion of biology etc.
5. In all common law jurisdictions, the courts recognise that the key issue is to determine what is in the "best interests of the child". As a rule they accept wide parental discretion in determining those interests, but have no hesitation in overriding parents in cases where they see the child's interests compromised - physical and sexual abuse, proper care, medical treatment. Cases of religious sects are of particular interest, because I am not aware of any instances where filling a child's head with religious or other nonsense is in and of itself regarded as sufficient justification from intervention. The plaintiffs in such cases, usually social welfare agencies, invariably have to demonstrate actual abuse or neglect or incompetence before the courts will act. This is probably a good thing since, up until recent times here and perhaps in many other jurisdictions today, bringing up a child as an atheist would according to prevailing social norms be regarded as abuse if the test were extended to intellectual environment.
13. Comment #15669 by Veronique on January 1, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Galactic Lord Xenu - comment 15583
I never subjected my sons to any religious or poltical ideology throughout their young lives. They are now 42 and 35 respectively.
What I did do and that can't be avoided by any parent, was teach them language and communication skills. That language (that I use) with all its overtones and undertones, all its unconscious inflections and usage was transmitted directly to them. So, in some sense, one cannot help but indoctrinate one's children.
Both of them have excellent language skills and are very articulate. That's to their advantage.
Did I 'abuse' them by teaching my language with all its interpretive commutations? The answer is probably 'yes'.
Both my sons are atheists and both are married to marginal (however indocrinated) Catholics. My older son has the greater problem during this time of the year. My younger son is more sanguine.
It is all something to ponder.
1. Comment #15572 by Pilot22A on January 1, 2007 at 11:29 am
This petition that Dawkins signed simply shows that he is subject to all the human foibles as the rest of us.
That said, the message is the same. Religion taught to freshly minted brains (i.e., children) is a form of child abuse. Dawkins has that right.
Also, a person as closely scrutinized as Dawkins is will surely err and the opposition will pounce on him as was done.