What Dawkins actually said about religion and children (video)

[edhopper]

I posted this in the other thread on this subject.
But I think we should talk about what he really said, not someone's misinterpretation.

[cbayer]

1. I am just going to repeat what I posted in response

when you posted this elsewhere:

My objection to his argument here is that he is comparing applies and oranges.

There are a variety of ways that one can apply and interpret religious labels. It may have to do with the family, the community, the culture. It may be used in a rather secular way, as we have often discussed here and have more to do with historical connections than religion.

In addition, he is talking about a religious story that was being put on and how children from families with different religious affiliations were being included.

The comparison with groups of a political persuasion, and particularly with groups of no religious persuasion, doesn't raise my consciousness at all.

While I agree with him that babies are born without religion, who is he to say at what point a child may religiously identify or whether religious identity, even if it is primarily cultural, is appropriate for children.

There is no such thing as a catholic, jewish, muslim or christian child? He' wrong about that.

He presents no data whatsoever to support his position and repeatedly encourages his audience to take up this dull sword.

He sounds like an evangelist, frankly, just with less fire in the belly.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. I prefer the term critical analysis over consciousness raising

Dawkins is making a critical analytical argument that no child is anything ideologically, politically, or religiously until indoctrinated by society. It would be silly to say that a four year old understands the intricacies of post modernism so why would we call a 4-year old a post modernist. Likewise with religion.

[cbayer]

4. But he makes no distinction between the cultural or community

aspects of a religious affiliation and a belief system, and that is where he fails.

Does one have to understand the intricacies of something before identifying as that? How intricate does that need to be?

At what point may a child be permitted to identity as straight, gay or otherwise? At what point may a child be permitted to identify as female, male or otherwise? At what point may a multi-racial child be permitted to identify as a member of a specific racial group?

And how in the world does this lead to his further arguments that children should be shielded from "fairy tales" in some way?

[okasha]

6. Perhaps it's been a bit too long

since Dawkins was a child.

[Stuckinthebush]

7. Identity is a set of social constructs

Period. He is not saying that people should never identify but that we need to critically understand that identity is a social construct. Furthermore, to understand how society normalizes certain identities one has to understand how language is used in normalization.

"Christian child" is a way to normalize religious identification by asserting that a child is and always has been Christian. Using the term "child with Christian parents" acknowledges the role of society in the formation of identities.

[cbayer]

11. Are you saying that sexual identity, gender identity and racial identity are social constructs?

And that a child needs to critically understand that before they can identify as something?

Christian child can mean many things other than the narrow definition you purpose, and it certainly doesn't imply "always".

Should I use the term "child with gay/straight parents" instead of gay child, when a child has identified themselves as gay?

Again, at what point is a child permitted to self-identify as having a certain religious affiliation?

[Stuckinthebush]

12. Indeed

Gay/straight is a social construct. Race is a social construct. Children are taught these identities.

Now, having a sexual attraction toward a member of the same sex is biological but the identity attached to that is social.

Again, Dawkins is not saying that children shouldn't socially identify he is saying that we need to critically analyze language to better understand the mechanism of identification.

[cbayer]

14. He is saying much more than that.

He is encouraging his audience to strongly challenge anyone who identifies a child as having a specific religious affiliation.

And he is doing it without talking about the age of the child or whether it is purely religious or cultural.

Were he making the kind of argument about critical analysis that you suggest, that would be different. He's laying down a premise and strongly encouraging a response without data or any kind of parameters.

He sure doesn't sound like a scientist.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. I absolutely disagree

Clearly he is engaging in discourse analysis here. He is asking his audience to engage in active analysis of social discourse. That's all.

[cbayer]

16. Did you make it to 2:30 and beyond on the video?

[Stuckinthebush]

18. Yes

I see him asking his audience to engage in consciousness raising aka critical social analysis. You see him asking them to do something different. This is where we diverge.

[cbayer]

19. Well, we just heard it entirely differently I guess.

I thought he was pretty clear.

I also "like" how he makes it very clear he's not trying to teach "facts", though I disagree that he is not trying to "indoctrinate" (his words in both instances), because what is indoctrination if not promoting ideas without facts?

[Stuckinthebush]

20. Clearly

We did hear different things.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Sometimes a blunted sword is really useful for making a dramatic point.

It's just a matter of enthusiasm.

[Stuckinthebush]

2. Good stuff

I've never seen that one.

So, what's the debate about what he said?

[skepticscott]

10. There is no "debate". What he actually said is clearly on record.

It's simply a lot of religionists on this board misrepresenting or outright lying about what he said. Or posting vapid crap from Salon and Huff Post hacks doing the same thing as they attempt to show that they are much "nicer" atheists than Dawkins.

[Stuckinthebush]

13. Oh

Well that's a shame.

[edhopper]

23. The other thread on this subject

where the idiot author thinks Dawkins says all babies are atheists (something he never does.)

[Starboard Tack]

5. While I agree that no child is born with a religious or social identity,

at what age does Mr. Dawkins consider it is appropriate to self identify?
Are 4 year olds not supposed to participate in theater, for fear that they may identify with the roles they play?
How about 14 year olds?

[Stuckinthebush]

8. I don't think that is his point here

Dawkins would certainly agree that social identity is real and happens. Here he is imploring us to understand the role of society in asserting identity. He's simply asking us to critically analyze language.

[Starboard Tack]

43. If that were truly what he was doing, then I would agree.

However, he says "there is no such thing as a Catholic child, Muslim child etc.", which is bullshit. If he'd said a 2 year old or maybe a 4 year old, I might agree, but he didn't. He said a child, which means anyone younger than 18. He uses an example of 4 year olds to make his point. Shame on him for playing fast and loose. Anyone critically analyzing his language can see what he is doing, which is trying to build his audience with cheap and simplistic examples.
Listen again to the last minute of his presentation.

[edhopper]

45. I think you are

inferring way to much.
He is clearly talking about young children. Not teenagers At no time does he say "anyone under 18" that is what you mean by children.
You are protesting something that is not in contention. You seem determined to find fault in this, where it isn't indicated.
I understand you would like a clarification on this, perhaps you should write to him and find out, rather than rail against something that he isn't saying. Absent of that information, critical analysis would dictate we don't have enough information to make a determination.

[Starboard Tack]

46. I'm not inferring anything.

I didn't come up with a definition for children. Under 18 is the legal definition in both the UK and US. If he meant young children then he should have said young children. But he didn't.
Hence, he broad brushed, which I think is pretty insulting to kids aged 7 and up.

I have no interest in writing to him for clarification. What he said was quite clear. You can interpret it as you wish. I take it at face value.

[edhopper]

47. You are deciding what HE meant by children

and even though his example was of young children and he said nothing of teenagers, you have read hios mind and decided he meant anyone under 18.
And you have no desire for any clarification because it's more important for you to feel insulted by him than get the facts.
This is obvious to me, I have told you what I think of your position here, no need to tell me again, I understand it and don't see this strong reaction as valid.
Have a good day.

[Starboard Tack]

48. No, I'm not deciding. You are cherry picking.

I think the definition is pretty universal

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[

I do not feel insulted by Dawkins, but I think many kids may feel insulted. My reaction is not so strong, but rather a commentary on his theatrics. He had a good message and then blew it with his generalization. I don't read minds, btw, but I recognize manipulation when it I see it.

[edhopper]

49. So how young do you think it is inappropriate

to describe a child as a follower of a particular religion?

[Starboard Tack]

50. Seven is the age of reason.

Younger than that, I would take such a description with a pinch of salt.

[edhopper]

51. Thanks

[pokerfan]

52. it also means a son or daughter of any age

e.g. "All my children are married." So clearly Dawkins means no person of any age can have a religious belief.

[Starboard Tack]

53. Right! LOL

I think it was clear that he meant children, even young children, but using 4 year olds was a little crude and somewhat disingenuous.

[edhopper]

21. Did you watch the video

his complaint is with the newspapers identification of the 4 year olds by their religion. And that maybe that isn't a good way to look at religion and children. He would prefer if they had said they are from different religious families rather than statingthe children's beliefs. That is his point

[Starboard Tack]

24. Yes, I watched it. And I agree with his initial point.

However, I think he is being rather disingenuous when, towards the end of the clip, he exhorts people to protest calling any child religious, political or intellectually independent. Using a bad media representation of 4 year olds is a cheap way of making his point about raising consciousness. I think he was going for the chuckles more than trying to raise consciousness.
Which brings me back to my questions for Mr. D. How old does he think a child should be to identify with ideas and beliefs. I remember having some pretty strong ones from around age 7, which I believe Sartre called the "Age of Reason".

[edhopper]

26. I don't know

you would have to ask him. I don't see that negating his point here, since he is talking about 4 year olds.
Would you accept his view if it's for children younger than 7? 6? 5? How old do you think a child should be identified according to religious beliefs?

[Starboard Tack]

28. Don't get me wrong. I agree with his points, but I question his method.

The entire show was a cheap shot, using an easy target.
I don't think children need to be identified by adults or anyone but themselves. They may express beliefs at virtually any age, but most will continue to rethink those beliefs as they experience life. When they stop rethinking, then that is the point where decay probably begins.
Certain beliefs may well be problematic, but an individual's inability to question them is far more problematic.

[edhopper]

30. But it is pervasive throughout the culture

to identify children as belonging to a certain religion. That is what he is addressing.
It might be an "easy target" but no more so that those in this country who keep saying it's a "Christian Nation". Which also should be countered whenever it occurs.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Again, I agree.

But I don't lump all children into that. I was very aware of my beliefs at the time I was confirmed, age 15, and had been for a few years. I was also aware when I discarded those beliefs at age 17. A child throughout the process.
I might also add that I went through that process alone, of my own free will, without any persuasion or even encouragement from any family member or other adult. Nobody in my family attended church or ever talked about religion.
My parents sent me to Sunday school from 5 to 7. Something to keep me occupied on Sundays. I didn't like it and rejected the stories as nonsense and asked too many questions. They asked my parents to not bring me back. No big deal.
At 12, I started going to church on my own, out of curiosity. Bought into it, embraced it and 5 years later I opted out. Again, no big deal.

I never tried to bring anyone to Jesus when I was a believer and never tried to take anyone away when I quit believing.

[edhopper]

32. I see that

though he was talking about very young children.
Teenagers would be a different case.

[Starboard Tack]

34. Yes, because the end of his performance refers to children in general.

Not 4 year old tots that he uses to make his point. I find that a little troubling.

[edhopper]

36. I find the clipping he showed more troubling.

But we can agree that in case of young children, he is right.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Absolutely, the clipping he showed was more troubling.

But I tend to be far more critical of the methods of those I agree with than the easy targets, especially when discussing these things on a liberal internet forum. We all know who the enemy is. That's not the problem here. The problem here is how we go about defeating that enemy while maintaining the high ground. There's much I like and admire about Dawkins, but sometimes I think he plays too much to his audience, which has become a tad sycophantic. So much so, that they don't pick up on it when he segues from 4 year olds to children in general.

[edhopper]

39. Well, it's hard to know what he exactly meant re:age given the nature of the lecture,

but that would be an interesting question for an interviewer.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. What child 'self identifies' with anything than the culturally transmitted religion

he or she was raised in?

[Starboard Tack]

44. I'm sure that lots do. I did.

And I actually switched denominations three times during my childhood, always of my own volition. I wasn't "raised" in any one of them. And I was still strictly a child (17) when I opted out. Don't dismiss children so easily. They really aren't that gullible.

[abelenkpe]

9. He is right

Religion is taught. No child is born into this world with a belief in god. That belief is taught. That label acquired.

[rug]

17. There's no such thing as an atheist child, only a child of atheist parents (2:59)

[edhopper]

22. Yes and no

it is more nuanced.
I would say a child is born without belief in any God, so that would be a defacto atheist. But that's more semantics. I also have a problem with talking about the beliefs for any young child as if they were analogous to that of an older person.
But I would agree if you are labeling the child, as Dawkins is talking about, it would be a child from an atheist family.

[Starboard Tack]

25. I agree. I think non-belief is the default position at the moment of birth.

But using 4 year olds to describe all children is pretty insulting to all children between 5 and 18.

[edhopper]

27. How old do you think it is okay

to describe one as a it does in the clipping he showed.
"Is Tommy age 3 (a Christian)" alright with you?
Do you think he is completely wrong and it's fine to identify children as followers of a certain faith?

[Starboard Tack]

29. No, I think he is correct, as I said before.

His methods are what I question, at times. He's a fairly smart guy, who uses his charm and eloquence to seduce audiences. He has become an entertainer, not unlike some televangelists. I'm sure he's doing quite well selling books, giving lectures and making TV appearances. His message may be sound, but his methods have become somewhat vaudevillian.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

33. Religion and culture are not the same.

For example, I know young adults who are a)culturally Hindu and religiously atheist;
b)Culturally Jewish and religiously atheist.

Dawkins uses the exact same examples in the book The God Delusion. I think a little child will have to think about their religion when they are in grade school, not four years old, and later come to a decision. And their religion or lack thereof may change any number of times.

I think Dawkins is pretty smart and see no problem with his argument.

[cbayer]

35. I think you put this very well and in a way that most people

can identity with.

The questions of when is a child old enough to self-identify and what part of that identification is cultural and what part is religion are what makes this issue not so black and white.

[edhopper]

37. I think the example he used is rather stark.

to say "Child's name- a Muslim" is different than saying "a Muslim child" which many might read as cultural or a child from a Muslim family. He would prefer to have them use "Muslim parents" or Muslim family". He wants to counter to idea of identifying a young child as a follower of a particular religion.
I think we can agree that is not a positive thing. And it is accurate, which journalist should try to be

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I recall how Noah's flood was presented to me in preschool.

I could draw you pages from the textbook, in fact.

It was presented as a garish lie. That god asked Noah to build an ark to save the cute pastel animals from a flood. Nothing about how all the people were wicked, and therefore god was going to eradicate every last man woman and child on earth outside Noah's immediate companions. No genocide. No negative aspect of it all.

It's the same lie presented to us as children, with visits from Officer Friendly in school. The police officer is your friend. He'll help you. Etc. Nevermind we all know that isn't the truth.


I don't see any credible way to assume these kids are freely coming to such faiths with their eyes open, by way of the truth. The first lie of the bunch, that a god exists at all, to believe in. It's assumed. Not critically analyzed. Not debated. God just 'is'. Period.

That's incredibly dishonest.