Campaigners says celebrities need to check facts before going public
Celebrities have been asked to check their facts before lending support to scientific research and campaigns, rather than risk misleading people.
Some celebrity-backed campaigns have done more harm than good, such as linking the MMR jab to autism, says the charity Sense about Science.
The group has listed statements made by stars on topics such as organic food, pesticides and ways to avoid cancer.
It adds scientists' views on whether the claims are misleading.
The list is contained in a pamphlet which is being distributed to VIP clubs and restaurants across the UK, as well as management agencies and publishers.
It offers advice such as "if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is", and lists a phone number for concerned celebrities to call if they want to discuss anything with experts.
Tracey Brown, Sense About Science's director, explained the thinking behind the leaflet.
"All year long, people send us frustrating examples of celebrities promoting something that makes no sense," she said. "Once it's done, it's really difficult to undo."
Scientists, traditionally a quiet bunch, are now trying to redress the balance and finding ways of promoting fact over misinformation
Illusionist Derren Brown
"We are producing this leaflet to show those in the public eye just how easy it is now to get help from scientists," Ms Brown added.
"We know some people are not interested in good science or evidence [but] we are equally sure some will be glad to talk through claims they are asked to front."
One celebrity who is backing the campaign is illusionist Derren Brown. He said: "We are more than aware that the media prefer a shocking story over delicate fact.
"In areas like food, environment and medicine, this can have serious results," he added.
"Scientists, traditionally a quiet bunch, are now trying to redress the balance and finding ways of promoting fact over misinformation."
In November, Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, called on the scientific community to become more involved in public debates about their research.
He added that there was a tendency for minority "strident" views to get exaggerated, leading to an unbalanced debate.
Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:
There is a man who lives at the North Pole.
He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.
During the year, he and the elves build toys.
Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.
He puts the sack in his sleigh.
He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.
He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.
He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
He leaves toys for the children of the household.
He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.
He does this all around the world in one night.
Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.
This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus.
But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.
What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.
Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.
Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:
"But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.
"How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.
"How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.
"Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.
"How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.
"How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.
"Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.
These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.
Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.
Now let me show you another example...
Another Example
Imagine that I tell you the following story:
I was in my room one night.
Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
He tells me an amazing story.
He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.
Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.
Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?
You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.
Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.
What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.
If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.
Another example
Imagine that I tell you this story:
A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.
A very bright flash of light appeared.
A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.
Then the man asked, "What should I read?"
The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."
The man ran home to his wife.
While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.
Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.
Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.
The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.
The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today. [Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]
What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.
But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.
Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.
If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.
An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.
One final example
Now let me tell you one final story:
God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.
Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.
In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus.
As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.
This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God.
But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.
His body was placed in a tomb.
But three days later, the tomb was empty.
And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again.
Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc.
This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.
The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.
This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions that my friend asked me in Example 1. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.
Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.
How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:
The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks - see this proof.
Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today - see this proof.
Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered - see this proof.
The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions - see this proof.
And so on.
In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.
Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?
Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:
Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? - No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing.
Is there any reason to believe that Jesus actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? - There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesus' life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old.
You mean to tell me that I am supposed to believe this story of Jesus, and there is no proof or evidence to go by beyond a few attestations in the New Testament of a Bible that is provably meaningless? - Yes, you are supposed to believe it. You are supposed to take it on "faith."
No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.
Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:
Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time -- otherwise Christians would build pyramids.
Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing -- otherwise Christians would kill virgins.
Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless -- otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.
Christians know that when Jews keep meat and dairy products separate, that they are wasting their time -- otherwise the cheeseburger would not be an American obsession.
Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others. This book, if you will let it, can tell you why.
A simple experiment
If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.
Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:
Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen.
Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.
What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.
Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:
Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.
Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.
If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.
If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:
It is not his will
He doesn't have time
I didn't pray the right way
I am not worthy
I do not have enough faith
I cannot test the Lord like this
It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
And on and on and on...
One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: “Well, of course Jesus doesn’t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.
You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ : Sue Blackmore is a freelance writer, lecturer and broadcaster, and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol. She has a degree in psychology and physiology from Oxford University (1973) and a PhD in parapsychology from the University of Surrey (1980). Her research interests include memes, evolutionary theory, consciousness, and meditation.
http://edge.org/ : The mandate of Edge Foundation is to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/ : Norm Jensen's great blog on politics, science, atheism, religion, chess and more. He posts clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report just about every day. Do I need to say any more?
http://samharris.org : The official website for Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.
http://www.secularsites.freeuk.com/ : This is a directory of web-sites that offer a range of opinion from some of the many individual atheist thinkers, writers and activists currently working towards the full establishment of rationalist, humanist, secularist, non-sectarian conduct of human affairs.
Never before has it been possible to read and spread these ideas free of the traditional censorship of the religious themselves or the politicians and media that are too craven to break their suppression of atheism.
For them to be effective and for religion to be relegated to its only rightful place, as a private activity for consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and places of worship, we must grasp this new medium of communication and promote the widest possible range of atheist views .
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com : Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions in America today, because this question lies at the heart of the American culture wars.
I have just visited my local branch of Britain’s biggest bookshop chain (WHSmith?), and this is what I found: six books on astronomy and nineteen books on astrology. The real science is outnumbered three to one by the pseudoscience. There were twenty books on angels, which means that angels and astrology together (39) outnumber the totality of books on all the sciences (33). When you add in the books on fairies, crystal healing, fortune telling, faith healing, Nostradamus, psychics and dream interpretation, it is no contest. Pseudoscience outnumbers science by at least three to one, and I didn’t even begin to count the far larger number of books on religion. This is not, of course, an academic bookshop. Oxford is well supplied with those, and they’d show a very different result. I made my counts in a popular bookshop, presumably typical of the nationwide chain of which it is a part – indeed, the chain’s buying policy is centralized in London, and we may be sure that strenuous and expensive efforts are made to reflect popular taste. As a statistical generalization, the general public, as opposed to an academic readership, prefers irrational books over books that reflect what we know about the real world.
A recent Gallup poll concluded that nearly 50% of the American public believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Nearly half the population, in other words, believes that the entire universe, the sun and solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, and all the billions of other galaxies, all began after the domestication of the dog.They believe this because they rate a particular bronze age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book – Genesis – which, by another series of historical accidents, has been translated and disseminated to almost every home in the land plus – infuriatingly – every hotel room. Even before science told us the true story of the origin of the world and the evolution of life, there was no reason to believe the Jewish origin myth any more than the origin myths of the Yoruba or the Kikuyu, the Yanomamo or the Maori, the Dogon or the Cherokee. Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin’s bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal.
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give. They are not just useful, they enrich our lives in the same kind of way as the arts do. Promoting science as poetry was one of the things that Carl Sagan did so well, and I aspire to continue his tradition.
Of course, excellent organizations already exist for raising funds and deploying them in the service of reason, science and enlightenment values. In Britain there are the British Humanist Association, the National Secular Society and the Rationalist Press Association, to mention a few. In America there are the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and many others. But the money that these organizations can raise is dwarfed by the huge resources of religious foundations such as the Templeton Foundation, not to mention the tithe-bloated, tax-exempt churches.
Over the years, I have given what I could to various secular and rationalist organizations, especially in America where the need is greatest. Unfortunately, however, it is hard for a British citizen to do this in a tax-efficient way. Charities in Britain and America are seldom recognized by the tax authorities on the other side of the Atlantic. Even when they are, the tax systems are different enough in the two countries to make major difficulties. For example, in America it is the donor who reclaims the tax, while in Britain it is the charity that reclaims the donor’s tax for itself.
I started to feel the need for an Anglo-American charity which would cut through these difficulties and facilitate the movement of funds to wherever they are most needed. At the same time it has been increasingly suggested to me that I personally might have some value as a fund raiser, because my books sell well in both countries. Many of my readers are enthusiastic and passionate about science and reason – and some have been kind enough to attribute their enthusiasm and passion to reading my books. Some of these enthusiasts are generous and eager to give, yet some of them might not necessarily think of giving to one of the existing secularist or rationalist charities. Did I not have a duty to set up my own charitable foundation?
My Trustees and I have set up the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science – RDFRS, or RDF. It is actually two sister foundations of the same name, one legally constituted in Britain and the other legally incorporated in the United States. It has an American trustee based in America (Karen Owens), an American trustee based in Britain (Claire Enders) and a British trustee based in Britain (me). At present, both organizations are companies, with applications for charitable recognition pending in their two countries.
Here is an example of how it might work (written version only):
When the charitable status has been granted, it will work like this. A British donor who wishes to give, say, £1000 to an American rationalist cause (either RDF itself or another charity) will give approximately £820 to the British RDF. RDF will then claim approximately £180 as a tax refund, making up the £1000, give it in dollars to the American RDFRS which will, if requested, pass it on to another American charity specified by the donor. Conversely, an American donor wishing to give, say, $1000 to a British (or Commonwealth) good cause will give it to the American RDF. The American RDF will send it to the British RDF with instructions to pass it on to the cause specified by the original donor. Meanwhile, the original donor claims the tax refund from the IRS, according to American charity law.
In these calculations, for the sake of argument, I have allowed for the possibility that the donor is specifying some other good cause as the ultimate beneficiary. But of course RDF itself, on both sides of the Atlantic, will have its own vigorous program of activities which will be well worth supporting in their own right. These will no doubt grow, as the years go by, but we initially visualize the following.
1. Research. We intend to sponsor research into the psychological basis of unreason. What is it about human psychology that predisposes people to find astrology more appealing than astronomy? At what age are young people most vulnerable to unreason? What are the correlations between religiosity and superstition on the one hand, and intelligence, educational level, type of education etc. on the other? Research of this kind would be supported in the form of grants to universities in America and Britain or wherever the best research can be done.
2. Education. Within the limits on political activity imposed by the charity laws of the respective countries, we would seek to support rational and scientific education at all ages, and to oppose the subversion of scientific education, for example by the well-financed efforts to teach creationism in science classes. Depending on how much money we raise, we would hope to subsidize the publication of books, pamphlets, DVDs and other educational materials.
3. Website. We shall maintain a high quality website (RichardDawkins.net/foundation), offering scientific, rationalist and humanist information and materials. This document is on that website, which is designed and maintained by Josh Timonen, a highly talented and expert web site designer (see Upper Branch Design). Please explore the website to see the range of stuff that is already there. And please volunteer suggestions and contributions to web.master@rdfrs.org.
4. Database of lecturers. We intend to keep a list, organized by regions in both America and Britain, of people, in universities and elsewhere, who might be willing to receive invitations to lecture. I receive a large number of such invitations myself. I accept as many as I can, but I can’t accept all of them. It would be extremely helpful to have, at my disposal, a list of younger people who might be less well known at this stage of their career, but who would probably give a much better lecture than I ever could. The database would be arranged on a region by region basis so that travel times to lecturing venues can be minimized.
5. Merchandise. Within the legal limits imposed on non-profit organizations in the two countries, we intend to supply, either free or at nominal prices, DVDs, tapes, podcasts, booklets etc. These will initially include such of my own television documentaries etc. as I am allowed to provide. For example, I am negotiating to acquire the rights to my 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children, entitled Growing Up in the Universe and originally broadcast by the BBC.
6. Publication. My own books are published by commercial publishers in Britain and America, but there are many excellent books on rationalism, humanism, secularism and atheism that are published only in one country. RDFRS, with its ‘dual nationality’, is well placed to arrange the publication of American books (videos, DVDs etc.) in Britain, and vice versa. At some time in the future, we might embark on some original publishing of our own.
7. Charitable giving by secularists to humanitarian good causes. Major disasters like earthquakes or tornados prompt a desire by decent people of all persuasions to help. I, for one, am always anxious that my money should go to help the disaster victims but should not fall into the hands of missionaries or other church-based organizations. Even if these organizations do eventually pass it on to the victims, they often do so with strings attached. Some of us are keen that no proportion of our donations should fall into the hands of missionaries. RDFRS will hope to maintain a list of charities, worldwide, which are certified free of missionary or church contamination.
8. Consciousness-raising. Feminists and homosexuals have taught us the value of consciousness-raising. A phrase like “One man one vote” either causes you to flinch, or is uttered with intent to make you flinch. It is nowadays almost impossible to hear the phrase with its original innocent meaning of “One adult person one vote.” Some atheists and freethinkers try to raise consciousness about, for example, the phrase ‘under God’ in the US Pledge of Allegiance. I am more interested in raising consciousness about something else: the habit, practised not only by religious people, of labeling children by the religion of their parents. This is a Catholic child. That is a Muslim child. I want everybody to flinch when they hear such a phrase, just as they would if they heard, That is a Marxist child. It is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents. At present, hardly anybody’s consciousness is raised to this. I would welcome suggestions, perhaps from those with experience of the feminist and gay campaigns, for the most effective ways to raise consciousness. I would like such consciousness-raising to be a particular project of this foundation.
Athorism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Can there be a productive conversation between Valhallans and athorists? Naïve literalists apart, sophisticated thoreologians long ago ceased believing in the material substance of Thor's mighty hammer. But the spiritual essence of hammeriness remains a thunderingly enlightened relevation, and hammerological faith retains its special place in the eschatology of neo-Valhallism, while enjoying a productive conversation with the scientific theory of thunder in its non-overlapping magisterium. Militant athorists are their own worst enemy. Ignorant of the finer points of thoreology, they really should desist from their strident and intolerant strawmandering, and treat Thor-faith with the uniquely protected respect it has always received in the past. In any case, they are doomed to failure. People need Thor, and nothing will ever remove him from the culture. What are you going to put in his place?
Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion. In America that means the cult of Yahweh, the God of the Jews commandeered by the Christians, Muslims and Mormons. Today, everyone takes it for granted that we are all atheists with respect to Thor and Wotan, Zeus and Poseidon, Mithras and Ammon Ra. If asked why you don't believe in Thor's hammer, you would probably say something like "Why is the onus on me to justify my nonbelief in Thor, given that there is not the smallest positive reason for belief?" You might go further and add that thunder, which was at one time attributed to Thor's hammer, now has a better explanation in terms of electric charges in the clouds. While technically agnostic about all those ancient gods, and about fairies and leprechauns too (you can't disprove them either), in practice we don't believe in any of them, and we feel no onus to explain why.
Today, while almost literally everybody is an athorist, nonbelief in the God of Abraham is the most reviled opinion in America. Professor Anthony M Stevens-Arroyo, one of the On Faith regular panellists, begins his answer to the current question as follows: "I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven't bumped into one yet. The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious . . ." As an experiment, try substituting the word 'Jew' or 'woman' for 'atheist', and imagine whether a university professor who said those three sentences would keep his job. Yet in present day America, a professor (of "Latino Studies") can publish such odious remarks about atheists and get away with it.
Of those scientists distinguished enough to be elected to the National Academy, more than 90% do not believe in any kind of supernatural God. Needless to say, many of them are likeable, friendly and far from obnoxious, as well as being intelligent, well-educated, happy and productive citizens. An equally high proportion of atheists has recently been disclosed among the Fellows of the Royal Society, and it is plausible that distinguished Academicians in philosophy, history, economics, literature and other disciplines, coming from the same educated and intelligent echelons of society, would yield similar data. One must hope that a respectable proportion of the Congress is drawn from that same educational and intellectual elite, so it is a strong statistical expectation that many of them must be atheists too. Yet I believe I am correct that not a single one of the 535 members of Congress will admit to the fact. A good many have got to be lying, and who can blame them? If they came clean they would be unelectable, as polls have repeatedly confirmed. Atheists are widely assumed to have no morals or values, to have no purpose in life, and to be incapable of love, or of appreciating beauty in art or nature. Who would vote for one of those?
The premise of this week's question is that atheism is enjoying a certain vogue. I hope and believe it is not a flash in the pan. The symptoms of which I am aware are indeed encouraging. Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation sold exhilaratingly well through 2006, and my own The God Delusion remains high in the bestseller lists into 2007. Similar success is to be expected during 2007 for Christopher Hitchens's forthcoming God is Not Great, and Victor Stenger's God: the Failed Hypothesis. Such buoyant sales of books advocating out-and-out atheism would have been inconceivable until surprisingly recently. When, six years ago, I first proposed The God Delusion to my literary agent he was blunt: "Don't even think about it." Yet now, after six years of incipient Chrisitian theocracy . . .
On my recent book promotion tour of the USA, the standing ovations I consistently received from packed audiences around the country, (including in Kansas, and Lynchburg, Virginia as well as, more predictably, the so-called 'blue' states) owed nothing to any eloquence or writing skills of mine, and everything, I believe, to a pent-up frustration among reviled freethinkers. Time after time, in the long book signing queues, young Americans (encouragingly young) confided to me, "Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying the things that I have wanted to say, but never felt I could" (see www.RichardDawkins.net). Sam Harris and Dan Dennett report similar experiences from equally large audiences. There is widespread hope that we are seeing the beginnings of a long-overdue shift in the tectonic plates of our culture. Polls suggest that atheists are far more numerous in America than they themselves realize. They well outnumber the Jews, whose political lobby packs a legendarily powerful clout. It is time for America's atheists to take courage from this, and from the books I have mentioned, come out of the closet, stand up, recognize each other, and work together to exert their rightfully proportionate influence on this great democracy. If those books are, as is often dismissively said, preaching to the choir, do not underestimate its size or ability. This is a very large and very talented choir, and the time has come for its music to be heard.
Almost all fruit and vegetables count towards your
5 A DAY
eat a variety of fruit and vegetables to get the maximum nutritional benefits.
This is because they each contain different combinations of fibre, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.
HOWEVER!! Ready meals, convenience foods and takeaways are often high in added salt, sugar or fat and should only be eaten in moderation - so it's important to check the nutritional information on food labels.
More than one in three people in this country will get cancer. Cancer is most comon in people over 60. But the habits we adopt earlier in life can alter our risk - sometimes dramatically.
Half of all cancers could be prevented by changes to lifestyle
Keep to your meal routine. Try to eat at roughly the same times each day, whether this is two or five times a day. For more information, go to our Eating Habits section.
Go reduced fat. Choose reduced fat versions of foods such as dairy products, spreads and salad dressings where you can. Use them sparingly as some can still be high in fat. For more information, go to our Hidden Calories section.
Walk off the weight. Walk 10,000 steps (about 60-90 minutes of moderate activity) each day. You can use a pedometer to help count the steps. You can break up your walking over the day. For more information, go to our Walking section.
Pack a healthy snack. If you snack, choose a healthy option such as fresh fruit or low calorie yogurts instead of chocolate or crisps. For more information, go to our Healthy Meal Ideas section.
Look at the labels. Be careful about food claims. Check the fat and sugar content on food labels when shopping and preparing food. For more information, go to our Look at the Labels section.
Caution with your portions. Don’t heap food on your plate (except vegetables). Think twice before having second helpings. For more information, go to our Portion Caution section.
Up on your feet. Break up your sitting time. Stand up for ten minutes out of every hour. For more information, go to our Keep on Moving section.
Think about your drinks. Choose water or sugar-free squashes. Unsweetened fruit juice contains natural sugar so limit it to 1 glass per day (200ml / 1/3 pint). Alcohol is high in calories; try to limit the amount you drink. For more information, go to our Hidden Calories section.
Focus on your food. Slow down. Don’t eat on the go or while watching TV. Eat at a table if possible. For more information, go to our Eating Habits section.
Don’t forget your 5 a day. Eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day (400g in total). For more information, go to our Five a Day section.
Over a quarter of people believe that fate will determine whether they get cancer, a survey says.
More women than men thought destiny would determine their chances - and smokers were 50% more likely than non-smokers to believe in it.
The poll of 4,000 people was carried out by the charity Cancer Research UK.
Those responding were asked if they thought they could cut their risk of developing cancer - or whether it was out of their hands.
In total, 27% of the people questioned said fate ruled whether they would be affected by the disease.
We can all reduce our risk of cancer by stopping smoking, keeping a healthy weight and eating a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables and taking plenty of exercise
Dr Lesley Walker, of Cancer Research UK
Among those from the most deprived areas, the figure rose to 43% and among those from the most privileged areas, it fell to 14%.
Smoking and obesity are linked to an increased cancer risk.
But the survey also found 34% of smokers and 36% of over 65s believed that getting cancer was down to fate.
Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at the charity, said: "It is alarming that such a large percentage of the British population do not realise that half of all cases of cancer can be prevented by lifestyle changes.
"We can all reduce our risk of cancer by stopping smoking, keeping a healthy weight and eating a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables and taking plenty of exercise.
"Enjoying the sun safely and avoiding sunburn also helps to reduce cancer risk.
"Cancer Research UK's Reduce the Risk campaign is actively encouraging people to learn how they can lead healthier lives and cut their risk of developing cancer.
"We can give people information about how to do this but it is seriously worrying that so many people think cancer is down to fate."
The Reduce the Risk campaign urges people to give up smoking, eat and drink healthily, protect themselves in the sun and visit their GP if they notice anything abnormal.
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.
nominated from a short list which included: Richard Dawkins, Ian Paisley, Al Gore, Blogging, Tim Berners Lee, Gerry Adams, Robin Eames, Norman Kember, Anna Politkovskaya, Pope Benedict, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Atheism, Andy McIntosh, and George W Bush
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.
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)
***********
Comments (some deleted by Chris Street) @ 9.38am 2nd January 2007
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.
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.
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?
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.
Music: a Humanist Perspective by Teddy Prout
-
When? Wednesday 23rd October 7.30pm
Where? Green House Hotel, Grove Road, BH1 3AX
Our speaker Teddy Prout is a classically trained musician and he was the
...
Where Are We in the Multiverse?
-
reference:
http://philocosmology.com/2014/03/17/where-are-we-in-the-multiverse/
Unedited copy, except my highlights in yellow.
Where Are We in the Multive...
Acidified Skin makes stem cells makes embroyos
-
h/t to David Haith on Dorset Humanists
https://www.facebook.com/groups/dorsethumanists/permalink/10152547756058943/?stream_ref=2
http://www.nature.com/news...
Energy production in Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes
-
Nature Scitable is a free education resource from Nature publishing. This
section is titled 'What Specific Pathways Do Cells Use?' I reproduce it
below bec...
What resolution should I scan photos or film?
-
Download Scanning Calculator (Excel spreadsheet).
*Reference:* Dennis Curtin Short Courses Exploring Pixels and Colours (accessed
24th February 2012)
*R...
Palin resigns Alaska governorship
-
*Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has formally resigned as
Alaska governor, 18 months before the end of her term in office.*
She announced...
Bone-repairing stem cell jab hope
-
reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7985142.stm
Thanks to Oliver Witt for link
By Michelle Roberts
BBC News health reporter in Oxford
[image...
MPs in call for new public holiday for Darwin Day
-
via http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/205
MPs are being urged to give their support to an Early Day Motion tabled in
the House of Commons to make Charle...
MAMBAR: Member Analytical MBA Resource
-
Welcome! If you are interested in our projects say 'hello' by leaving a
comment.
MAMBAR are:-
- MBA (Master Business Administration) graduates or stude...
Where's the debate on the DNA database?
-
It contains the profiles of a million innocent people and lacks basic
safeguards – but it has no legislative foundation
- [image: Diane Abbott]
...
World trade talks end in collapse
-
World trade talks end in collapse
EU trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's reaction
*Marathon talks in Geneva aimed at liberalising global trade have
col...
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.