Skip to main content

BOOK CLUB: The God Delusion, chpt 9

This chapter is to a large extent anecdote-driven. There are some real horror stories about what has been done to children in the name of religion. And of course these are not isolated incidents.

Nevertheless, this is to a large extent a series of anecdotes, and there is always a risk attached to that. Anecdotes are highly effective as rhetorical tool, irrespective of whether there's much truth to the claims they are being used to illustrate. People tend to respond best to narrative - to a story. The Daily Mail, for example, is chock full of anecdotes about foreigners, edicts from Brussels, crime, and so on, and that can, and does, often give a highly misleading impression of what the situation is really like.

In response, Dawkins's opponents will simply trot out endless anecdotes about the benefits of raising children in a religious belief system (take a look at e.g. the work of Melanie Phillips - Mail columnist and author of such anecdote-driven rhetoric as the dreadful All Must Have Prizes ). You can't really establish what's true just by looking at the anecdotes being offered by either side.

Still, Dawkins admits he is "consciousness raising", and if that is your aim then piling up the anecdotes is a very effective tool. I call it APPRA - the Awesome Persuasive Power of Ramified Anecdote.

So, I approach this chapter cautiously because of its heavy reliance on APPRA. Having said that, it's masterfully done, and it's not as if there isn't, in fact, a good case being built for not indoctrinating children with religion. There is.

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
Hi Stephen,

Most of my generation (I’m a decade younger than Dawkins) grew up with religion as part of our education, but over 90% (probably closer to 99%) rejected it when they got past their adolescence, whether they were Catholic or Protestant. We now have Cardinal George Pell (Archdiocese of Sydney), who would love to turn back the clock to the 1950s, when the Church was still a political force and could manipulate social mores, but few people take him seriously, Catholic or otherwise (except the Pope and he doesn’t live here). I guess that is why Dawkins’ concerns are considered a little shrill in this country.

From the experience of my own religious education, I’m against the idea of teaching children religion as fairy tales, for the simple reason that they believe them to be true. I agree with Dawkins that there is a great heritage, not only in Christianity, but the other world religions, that should be preserved. I think religion should be taught in a historical and philosophical context, not unlike the way you've divulged it in your book, 'Philosophy'.

Having said all that, I call myself a religious person, but it has nothing to do with anything Dawkins has discussed thus far: it’s to do with my own sense of spirituality that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Regards, Paul.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o