Forcing a religion on your children is as bad as child abuse, says atheist professor Richard Dawkins

Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.

In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.

The evolutionary scientist and Emeritus Fellow at Oxford University, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.

Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.

'What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that,' the Daily Telegraph reported he had said.

'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.'

Professor Dawkins, a biologist who revolutionised the theory of evolution with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, added that he thought it was still important to teach children about different faiths.

'There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,' he said.

For a little perspective, see this more recent news:

Author and Oxford Lecturer Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild Pedophilia'

In other words, then, "forcing a religion" is like child abuse, but "mild" pedophilia is not. (Of course, I'm assuming that the Dawkins universe is relatively stable in its views and self-consistent in its statements. I acknowledge that my assumptions of stability and self-consistency may be a little unwarranted.)

If a Pat Robertson (of whom I am not a fan) had said two things like that, the MSM total outrage would've been deafening.

RE: In other words, then, “forcing a religion” is like child abuse, but “mild” pedophilia is not.

The more important philosophical question is this: If we assume Dawkin’s belief to be true, how is child abuse truly evil? By what standard does he determine what is “good” and what is “bad” if we are all ultimately just products of the random collision of atoms?

RE: This guy thinks pedophilia is okay but not taking a kid to church.

To be really consistent, the best Dawkins can say is ultimately, we can’t really say if there is a difference between being a Mother Theresa or Osama Bin Ladin. After all, they are both just products of chance collision of atoms.

To quote Hillary, in the long run — What difference does it make?

Bin Ladin, Mother Theresa, they’re both now cosmic dust.

Yes, I too have thought of the question, which in a way is the background to my earlier points.

If the materialist atheists are correct about certain things, then they should question the existence of Good--and the existence of Evil, Morality, Ethics, and what-have-you.

Is there any scientific proof that those truly exist outside our minds? I myself have never heard of any scientific evidence that the products of the random collision of particles should learn more about logic than about the Kardashians, should generally prefer nonviolence to violence, or should prefer non-pedophilia to pedophilia, however "mild" it is alleged to be. In fact, there'd be no consistent reason to be outraged over religious wars or even to be an atheist.

Then again, if they are correct about those certain things, then there really exists no reason that they should even live up to their self-professed standards, anyway.

In other words, this "more important philosophical question" is one of the main reasons that I've never been able to take conventional missionary atheism very seriously. If its fundamental professions about the nature of reality are truly correct, then its frequent ethical allusions are inherently self-contradictory and basically pointless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.