He has commented on this before in writing. I can't remember which book it was, it may have been The God Delusion.
Richard Dawkins Fail...
by tenyearsafter 43 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Jesus. My respect for this man has just taken a serious nose-dive into the negative. Some intellectuals are far too cerebral and contrarian for their own good. What was he thinking of?
-
tenyearsafter
Zound...I saw this article in the Huffington Post, which is traditionally a very liberal mainstream news service in the U.S.. Religion News Service is the "desk" of HP that the article appeared in.
I am a disturbed that he classifies activity like pedophilia as "major" or "minor". I remember a situation in the U.S. a few years back where a judge referred to a rape case as being minor because the victim "asked for" the assault by her actions. He eventually had to resign in disgrace.
What really bothers me is that his attitude is not all that different than the WTS about this subject...I would guess the majority of child molestation that occurs among JW's would fall under Dawkin's definition of minor. Very disturbing...
-
tenyearsafter
Here is the full article from The Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/magazine/article3858647.ece
I don't have a subscription, but for someone who does, please share to confirm that the story was completely reported in the Huffungton Post and The Washington Post.
-
tenyearsafter
Does anyone subscribe to The Times that could post the full article? Curious if the quotes were in context...thanks.
-
adamah
I'd think long and hard before challenging RD on ANYTHING he says, as he doesn't often speak "off the cuff", but usually chooses his words very carefully.
The fact is, RD is right on this point: pedophilia is the topic de jour that triggers an emotional gut reaction in many, where people tend to turn off their brains and form angry mobs to carry out vigilante justice to burn the witches; the topic elicits a knee-jerk response in so many.
This reaction to pedophiles is drastically different to how people in 1950's UK reacted, where it was more of a "sweep it under the rug" situation (eg Jimmy Savile decades-long cover-up at BBC, which lasted until his recent death; or Peter Townsend's 'Tommy' is the story of a child who was the victim of a pedophilic Uncle, where it was kept as a family secret). Sure, NOWADAYS we don't accept such behavior, since the tolerance has lowered as the awareness and understanding of its harm and damage has increased in the last 60 years, but then?
Point being, RD understands that cultural norms (and laws) change with the passage of time, so YES, it is foolish to retroactively apply CURRENT secular standards of moral behavior to the past, if not only for pragmatic reasons (eg the statute of limitations have long-since run out: good luck prosecuting a case, 60 yrs after it is alleged to have occurred, where the perp is likely long-since dead). Now if someone believes standards of "evil" exist, as if WRITTEN in concrete, they're not going to agree.
10yrsafter said-
I am a disturbed that he classifies activity like pedophilia as "major" or "minor".
And why does that disturb you? The judicial system does exactly that, eg pedophiles who download child porn aren't punished the same as those who grope children, vs those who touch their genitalia, vs those who actually rape them. "Mild" pedophilia fits RD's description, where even that charge is going to be difficult to prove (due to passage of time).
Note that RD didn't state if the schoolmaster even touched his genitals or only his thigh, stomach, or if it was a brush, etc: he only said the perp put his his hand "in his shorts". From those details, the defense could be, "it was an accident!" and a prosecutor would have a difficult case.
I remember a situation in the U.S. a few years back where a judge referred to a rape case as being minor because the victim "asked for" the assault by her actions. He eventually had to resign in disgrace.
That is a fallacious example of creating a "false equivalency", where there's a WORLD of difference between RAPE of an adult (with vaginal penetration with a penis) and groping a child. The judge WAS wrong, since RAPE is RAPE, and there should be no gradations in rape (which by definition is sexual contact against the victim's will, i.e. without giving consent).
Note this part, where RD said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."
The members of RD's 'school peer group' have talked amongst themselves to share their experiences with the molester, and none report experiencing lasting psychological/emotional/physicial harm, i.e. presumably they've all proceeded with their lives, and didn't let a pathetic pervert trip up their lives by allowing them to remain victims of his actions. That's a GOOD thing, so your problem with that is what, exactly?
Don't confuse RD's statement as serving as an ENDORSEMENT or EXCUSIOLOGY of pedophilia: that would be taking his words WELL-BEYOND what he actually said, based on unwarranted assumptions. Hyperbolic interpretaion is EXACTLY what happened, as we see that the religious news reporter used RD's words as an excuse to get responses from child abuse advocates, to make what to me are even-more hyperbolic ludicrious statements than what RD said.
Phizzy said-
I think his broad point, that we do not, or perhaps should not, judge people from a previous age by the standards we hold to now is correct.
Sure, I agree, if you're referring to SECULAR standards of morality. However, this part concludes you're NOT:
We often on here condemn slavery in earlier times, and of course slavery is wrong, but we should not perhaps judge Paul's advice to Philemon too harshly, looking at it through 21st century goggles.
RD and ANY atheist would strongly disagree with THAT conclusion, since once again, that's NOT what he implied, but only your reading into his words what he likely wouldn't agree with. He wasn't contradicting his prior attacks on Bible morality, as if he's had a change of heart and "found God".
eg Paul's endorsement of slavery RELIES on a fallacy of "appeal to Divine Authority", which is the ONLY REASON that Paul said what he did; Paul was saying, "God wants us to do it, so that makes it moral." That's flawed logic.
A propagation of an unwarranted conclusion explains why modern believers (like Michelle Bachmann) argue that we should rely on "God-given morality", although mankind has long-ago decided to NOT allow Bible-based morality to retard moving forward by granting fundamental human rights to all, including blacks (vs the "Curse of Ham" in Genesis 9, the passage where Jehovah CURSED some humans to serve as slaves to others). There's a big difference between criticizing the morality of those in the past based on secular vs primary (God-given) morality.
Having said that, I think Dawkins is totally wrong about what he calls "mild paedophilia", or "touching up". The effect on the child/under age person is not known or measureable by Dawkins, he does not have the knowledge or expertise to evaluate such a thing. To speak as he did, even of his own subjective view, from a position of ignorance is foolish in the extreme for such a public figure.
Well, I'd agree that it was foolish to do so, knowing that there'd be a tendency for some to interpret his words well-beyond what he actually said. However, RD is no FOOL, and perhaps he saw the controversy following Islamic author Reza Aslan's promotional appearance on Fox News (a book on Jesus which went to #1 AFTER the faux news controversy), where RD knows that controversy drives sales, i.e. there is no such thing as "bad" publicity (esp when he's right). It's hard to avoid believers stirring up some controversy, since they need little excuse to react, feeling that their God DEMANDS them to do so.
The saddest thing of all about this foolish statement is that opposers to his views on other matters, Evolution etc, will use this , especially JW's : "Oh you can't take any notice of him, he ........" Think hard before you speak Richard.
True, but RD knows that using logic against faith is a pointless pursuit, anyway, since there are many believers who don't NEED ANY reason, good OR bad, to deny evolution; believers place FAITH above reason. And haterz will be haterz, so their protests are only going to make more-reasonable people interested to see WHAT all the kerfuffle is all about, and why RD's words are able to elicit such an emotional response. He's likely crazy like a fox....
But again, until I'm able to examine RD's words in the ORIGINAL CONTEXT to verify what RD actually said, I'll withhold my criticism and judgment.
Adam
-
bohm
Cofty: i am allmost certain i read about it in the god delusion, i also heard him explain about it in an interview. Its just the usual anual richard dawkins non-troversy at huffington :-)
-
hamsterbait
What disgusts me about the religious fanatics who will be dancing in the steets at this:
They read the OT with its accounts of Moses telling the soldiers to take any little girl they fancy, as long as they remove her toenails (WHY the toenails????) All the other murder and mayhem dished out on children, as well as the she-bear incident. No comment except "we cant judge them by contemporary standards..."
Or the Muslims who happily marry off their female children, some when only toddlers. A case this week in the news where a 40 year old husband became a widower, as his eight year old bride died of sexual injuries on the wedding night. Where is the outrage from the immams and mullahs?
But Dawkins says he got over being caressed by a teacher, and there is uproar. Should he be weeping and gnashing his teeth?
We should also remember that physical abuse of children is not always sexual - it can be by means of violent assault, such as hitting with objects and shaking. Does this mean that I can get teachers prosecuted for what they did to me at school along these lines, since it happened only 25 - 30 years ago? I still cringe at the sheer viciousness of one teacher, and have not really gotten over it.
HB
-
adamah
HB said:
They read the OT with its accounts of Moses telling the soldiers to take any little girl they fancy, as long as they remove her toenails (WHY the toenails????) All the other murder and mayhem dished out on children, as well as the she-bear incident.No comment except "we cant judge them by contemporary standards..."
Which is an ironic defense for a believer to state, as if God is a cultural relativist who doesn't offer God-given "perfect" ABSOLUTE moral values which span across all times and places. What happened to a God who's morality "cannot change"?
But now believers will pull this out-of-context quote of RD to justify that flawed concept:
"I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today," he said.
The spanking issue is perhaps more obvious, since it was simply the norm to spank in the 1950's, since most were following the Bible's "spare the rod and spoil the child", which was simply a physical implementation of "might makes right". But few questioned it, until child psychologists started to point out it's harm.
Am I going to hold it against my parents for spanking me? Of course not: it was motivated by love (in their case), and we cannot retroactively apply standards from today. ALTHOUGH it is valid to examine WHERE the flawed idea originated from: the Bible, which wasn't questioned, since it was accepted as being the source of perfect unchanging morality, since it came from God. Heck, JWs must still spank today, despite the threat of having someone from Child Protective Services make an unnounced visit to investigate reports of child abuse. Times and attitudes HAVE changed, since that thinking wasn't on most people's radar in the past.
One would almost think RD is just BEGGING believers to take the bait here, as if egging them on to denounce his position, and arguing against THEIR own God-given core moral beliefs of God being the perfect moral source, not even realizing they're arguing against what their position is SUPPOSED to be?
Yeah, RD is the ignant (sic) guy here, LOL, when he's crazy like a fox!
Adam
EDIT:
Found this video designed to accompany the Times interview promoting his AUTOBIOGRAPHY (where he's shown playing an Akai EWI: pretty cool device):
-
hamsterbait
DawkinS agrees with contemporary moral views: "CONDEMN [it] AS I or anyone would TODAY." This has been quietly ignored by his critics.