Is Richard Dawkins after your children?

Ivy League institutes of higher learning were established by Christians with theological foundations: Yale, Harvard, Brown, Cornell, et al. Later on liberals and atheists of all sorts, not being able or willing, to establish anything original, latched onto them in leech like manner and turned them into universities to diversities: that is, from institutions of higher learning which sought to bring together all disciplines into a coherent worldview into institutions that replaces wisdom with chaotically scattered information.

What does Richard Dawkins seek to establish? An indoctrination / re-education camp for his favorite audience: children.

You may be aware that his book The God Delusion was supposed to contain such power that no one would be able to resist ending up an atheist by the time they read thorough it. Then, when it was in the process of being picked apart for what it is—poor logic, poor history, poor theology, poor science, poor in general—he downgraded it to a book that would appeal to the fence sitters. Finally, he ended up stating that it was supposed to be a funny book and an amusing book (with this I can actually agree as he obviously did not put much musing into it).

Richard Dawkins was recently taken aback—which he does when he feels like wearing the prim and proper British gentleman facade—in stating, “What have you read of mine that makes you think I have a skewed agenda?” Well, his agenda is certainly twisted but it is out there and as clear as day. He has already condemned parents who raise their children according to their religious beliefs as “child abusers,” etc. He has wondered if there would be occasion for society to step in and has admitted that his goal in interfering is, of course, that children would end up as atheists. Recently, he continued his Pied Piper children’s crusade:

…the story has come forth that he wants to start an atheist school….it is in any case revealing of his reasoning…

He was asked by one commenter:

"What would you say to parents of children who attend quite orthodox state-funded schools who are very anxious that their child be educated within that context? I am thinking specifically of the ortho-Jewish schools around my way (north London). I know for a fact a lot of these parents cannot countenance the idea of their child being educated within a non-Jewish school. What do you think they should do?"

His response was:

"That's a good point. I believe this is putting parental rights above children's rights."

It is impossible to read this as meaning anything but that children have a right to be educated as Richard Dawkins thinks fit, but not as their parents do. He alluded several times in the threat to the sufferings of atheist parents forced to send their children to faith schools…

"Is it better to stand by one's principles or be hypocritical in order to provide the best option? What a horrible dilemma to be forced into."

But apparently this doesn't apply if your principles are religious ones, because then your children have a right to be educated as atheists.

Of course, the Dawkins position here is purely a matter of assertion. It's impossible to imagine anything that might qualify as evidence for the view that it is okay for atheists to discriminate against parents who have particular religious beliefs, while it is very wrong for believers to do so.

But "evidence", tends to be defined backwards in these polemics – in other words, he starts from the axiom that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, (implied here in his remark that "Every atheist I know would change their mind in a heartbeat if any evidence appeared in favour of religious belief") and then find meanings for the term that fit this use. This is of course the same trick as defining faith as belief without evidence and then using this definition as proof that faith is irrational.

If that sounds unfair, consider the uses of "evidence" in his discussion of education here:

"Children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded. If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists."

It's clear here that Dawkins is starting from the definition that "evidence" is what can't justify a belief in God, whereas "tradition, authority, revelation, and faith" have all been used to justify religious belief, so they must be bad.

But the idea that you can separate a respect for evidence from a respect for tradition and authority doesn't survive a moment's reflection on the ways that children actually learn. That's true whether or not God exists.

To be sceptical, critical, and open-minded are all mental, and even moral disciplines. Obviously, all education in any schools, should try to produce such children. But these skills don't come naturally. Indeed, Dawkins, in other moods, will emphasise the utter lack of these skills in small children. So how are they learned? If you want to teach children to be sceptical, critical, and open-minded, you have to start from authority and induct them into a tradition where these things are valued.

The construction of reasoned arguments is a skill that many people never master at all. If they ever do, it is on the basis of social and moral skills, involving self-discipline and a respect for others, which can only be taught with authority. When you are bringing up children "Because I say so" precedes every other sort of "because", and it must. We learn to yield to the authority of reason by our experience of earlier yielding to other sorts of authority.

Obviously, not any tradition, nor any old authority will do for this purpose. Most cultures, for most of history, have put very little value on originality and non-conformity. Teenagers, above all, are hideously concerned about whether they fit in and it takes skilled and strong-minded teachers to relieve even some of this anxiety. But they can't do it without the support of an authoritative tradition that values non-conformity.1

The more that Richard Dawkins is challenged, the more he cowers from debate, the more interested he becomes in children—whom he has been indoctrinating / re-educating for a long, long time—so that he can train them as to how to agree with him from the cradle. He fails so very badly in the arena of ideas that he must get to children before their ideas develop.

And if the atheist response is to pull a tu quoque (essentially stating, “You do it too!”) then they are, again and as usual, mincing theists. Thus, they are copying those who are supposed to be oh, so ignorant. They are engaging in cognitive dissonance, contradiction, illogicality and hypocrisy. And they will be loud and proud to do so, by the way.

I have a plethora of evidence as to atheist’s attempts to dictate child rearing, theirs and yours: see my section on Atheist Child Rearing

1. 1. Richard Dawkins's backwards logic over atheist schooling