Famous Evolutionist Richard Dawkins: "Religion Equals 'Child Abuse'"


#1

Source: worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252
DAWKINS: RELIGION EQUALS 'CHILD ABUSE’
Scientist compares Moses to Hitler,
calls New Testament ‘sado-masochistic doctrine’

Posted: January 8, 2006, 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, dubbed “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” calls religion a “virus” and faith-based education “child abuse” in a two-part series he wrote and appears in that begins airing on the UK’s Channel 4, beginning tomorrow evening.

Entitled “Root of All Evil?,” the series features the atheist Dawkins visiting Lourdes, France, Colorado Springs, Colo., the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and a British religious school, using each of the venues to argue religion subverts reason.

In “The God Delusion,” the first film in the series, Dawkins targets Catholicism at the pilgrimage site in Lourdes. “If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics,” he says.

Dawkins, using his visit to Colorado Springs’ New Life Church, criticizes conservative U.S. evangelicals and warns his audience of the influence of “Christian fascism” and “an American Taliban.”

The backdrop of the al-Aqsa mosque and an American-born Jew turned fundamentalist Muslim who tells Dawkins to prepare for the Islamic world empire – and who clashes with him after saying he hates atheists – rounds out the first program’s case for the delusions of the faithful.

In part two, “The Virus of Faith,” Dawkins attacks the teaching of religion to children, calling it child abuse.

“Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods,” he says. “It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn’t it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents’ religion?”

“Sectarian religious schools,” Dawkins asserts, have been “deeply damaging” to generations of children.

Dawkins, who makes no effort to disguise his atheism and contempt for religion, focuses on the Bible, too.

“The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist,” he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament “St Paul’s nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin.”

John Deighan, a spokesman for the Catholic Church, took issue with Dawkin’s denunciation of religion, telling the Glasgow Sunday Herald, “Dawkins is well known for his vitriolic attacks on faith, and I think faith has withstood his attacks. He really is going beyond his abilities as a scientist when he starts to venture into the field of philosophy and theology. He is the guy with demonstrable problems.”

Madeline Bunting, a columnist for the Guardian, who reviewed the series, wrote: “There’s an aggrieved frustration that [atheist humanists] have been short-changed by history – we were supposed to be all atheist rationalists by now. Secularization was supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even more grating, what secularization there has been is accompanied by the growth of weird irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don’t believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything.”

Dawkins, perhaps best known for his much-cited comment that evolution “made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist,” appeals to John Lennon in a commentary he authored for the Belfast Telegraph on the eve of his program’s premiere: "Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. “You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.”


#2

Dawkins definitely has problems with religion, but his science is good. He could be Satan incarnate but this has little to do with the validity of his science.

I’m waiting for the Dawkins vs. William Lane Craig great debate on the existence of God. It won’t be pretty. Craig hasn’t lost yet…555 to 0 if I am counting right. :thumbsup:

The one debate I recently got I thought Craig would have problems with: “Christianity vs. Scientific Naturalism” but Craig won easily. The biologist he debated was an old fogey, and they hardly touched on evolution. It was a poor debate. I’m sure Dawkins could do better. :smiley:

Phil P


#3

Incidentally, regarding the “religion as child abuse” comment, I imagine that he would agree that indoctrinating a child with atheism is also mental child abuse. And even if he wouldn’t, it still fits with his argument.


#4

[quote=EnterTheBowser]Incidentally, regarding the “religion as child abuse” comment, I imagine that he would agree that indoctrinating a child with atheism is also mental child abuse. And even if he wouldn’t, it still fits with his argument.
[/quote]

Though that is logically possible it doesn’t apear he’s flown to Russia to point out the deficiencies of an Aethestic based society, referred to his own belief system as a virus or the root of all evil.

I’m inclined not to give him the benefit of doubt in this area.


#5

[quote=clmowry]Though that is logically possible it doesn’t apear he’s flown to Russia to point out the deficiencies of an Aethestic based society, referred to his own belief system as a virus or the root of all evil.

I’m inclined not to give him the benefit of doubt in this area.
[/quote]

A society based on art appreciation? ; )

Regardless of what Dawkins admits, if we accept that indoctrinating children in religion is child abuse, indoctrinating children in atheism would also be child abuse.


#6

Listen to Richard Dawkings on BBC radio tinyurl.com/9wsug

I like the guy and love his cute, sexy voice… “eeevolution”. He is a ‘bright’. He praises Jesus and isn’t against religion! :smiley:


#7

[quote=wildleafblower]…He praises Jesus and isn’t against religion! :smiley:
[/quote]

Well, in this interview he is quite openly against religion:
beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_1.html

And he is certainly not praising Jesus here:
beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13688_1.html

For a man of science, he sure comes to a lot of wrong conclusions! :stuck_out_tongue:


#8

[quote=PhilVaz]Dawkins definitely has problems with religion, but his science is good. He could be Satan incarnate but this has little to do with the validity of his science.
[/quote]

Well I have to disagree.

Science is not mathematics, where you plug in the numbers and out pops the right answer. The data has got to be evaluated objectively. This man is clearly not objective in certain areas, and it has warped his mindset, as can be seen by the interviews I have quoted in my previous post.

I actually think Dawkins is quite religious in his own atheistic way (ie, he believes dogmatically there is no God, despite all the scientifically inexplicable miracles at Lourdes). And he interprets everything through the cloudy mental lens of his false religion. We know that “Scripture Alone” is not adequate, but “Science Alone” is worse by far.

Unfortunately he seems to have enough of an audience to get a TV show in England. This is more than sad… Those people’s minds are being poisoned with lies.


#9

I watched both programmes and they were intellectually dishonest. They were a big anti-religious (mainly anti-christian) rant by Dawkins. He says he believes in reason, science and facts, but there not many of these in evidence, just a lot of smear and sneer. The “child abuse” charge; calling faith “the process of non-thinking”; calling people in procession at Lourdes “faithful drones”, a “benign herd”, who like to “wallow” in the waters like so many hippopotamuses. These are hardly words of reason.

A nice moment was when a Rabbi pointed out to him that evolution was a theory, Dawkins said he considered it a fact. To which the Rabbi said “you are a fundamentalist then?”

It’s easy to pick on some extreme elements in any religion and poke fun at them, but that doesn’t make a serious debate.

He did make comments about the Palestine situation, and interview a Islamic bigot, but that was a far as he (dared?) attack Islam and Jusaism (and no other religion). So most of the two programs were either general comments or a specific attack on Christianity.

You can see the intellectual dishonesty of the man in his comments about the Lourdes miracles. After learning that were only 66 fully attested miracles, he took time to sneer at the fewness of the, and then said “they would probably have got better anyway”. Hw totally ignored the point that these 66 are the ones that have all the full medical evidence from before and after the cures, and that medical opinion is that there is no way they could have been cured naturally. He wasn’t interested in facts or science.

His own “science” suggested that the good in man could be expalined by “altruistic genes” and nodded encouragingly as a scientist proposed these. No actual facts or evidence of such convenient things. This appeared to be based on work with monkeys. It was interesting that the next morning I heard a news bit on the radio from a scientist who was working with monkeys saying they didn’t help each other unless there was something in it for him. If a monkey had a banana he didn’t want he wouldn’t lift a finger to give it to another monky who was starving. So much for “altruistic genes”.

The last couple of issues of The Tablet (UK Cathlic weekly) has had a couple of articles demolishing Dawins programmes.


#10

Not having seen anything of the show, my comments might be off base. But I think I’ll make them anyway

As Scripture says. God “visits the iniquity of the parents onto the children down to the 3rd and 4th generation.”

which is true whether the parents are religious or not. All have sinned (save one, or maybe two) and so all who have children are guilty, to some extent, of child abuse.

I did not observe any criticism of Jesus in any of the reviews so I take it he doesn’t find fault with Jesus?

Jesus is the only one who didn’t committ child abuse. I wonder if we could put Mary also in the non-child abusing category. As stated above that is like saying person doesn’t have any sin, or at least they don’t pass it on.

Whatever we call it, Jesus knew the Master of the Universe, the way an only and most beloved son knows his own father. Learning to know the Master in that way is the greatest thing any of us could hope for, whether we are religious or not. I wonder if this show can contribute anything to anyone that would help them reach that goal.

peace

-Jim


closed #11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.