Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Saved_JW

  Scientists shouldn't be allowed to talk about things except their subject of expertise?

  I wouldn't go so far as to say that. However i think it does become an issue when people who generally look up to him as an authority figure, will blindly accept his opinions on subjects that are not directly related to his field of expertiese.

  Like I said before, I believe Richard Dawkins moral opinion on pedophilia IS consistent with his worldview. Actually, I dont think is really goes far enough.

  The problem I have is when somebody deny's a universal moral absolute then at the same time, judges somebody elses moral opinion [be that sexual or otherwise]

  Without a universal absolute, we have no foundation to say that Pedophilia is or isnt wrong. Its simply an action prompted by the emotions of one or both parties involved.

  I believe Richard Dawkins unlike most of his followers, is actually consistent with the foundation of his worldview, inspite of those who morally object to his opinion.
• 

  cofty

  people who generally look up to him as an authority figure, will blindly accept his opinions on subjects that are not directly related to his field of expertiese.

  What idiots would do that?

  Please don't judge rational people by the standards of the faith community where appeals to authority is all there is.

  Without a universal absolute, we have no foundation to say that Pedophilia is or isnt wrong.

  That is a common error by theists. There is no "absolute" standard of morality but that does not prevent us from making "objective" moral judgements that have nothing to do with personal preference.

  Objective morality is ONLY possible by first rejecting belief in an ultimate law giver.

  I believe Richard Dawkins unlike most of his followers, is actually consistent with the foundation of his worldview

  Dawkins has made it clear he detests child abuse.
• 

  cantleave

  Without a universal absolute, we have no foundation to say that Pedophilia is or isnt wrong.

  Our abhorrance of paedophilla has strengthened as we understand more about the psychological damage it can cause. In the same way our view of slavery has changed through the centuries as we realised that their is no such thing as an inferior race. This IMO demonstrates the subjectivity of morals and how increased knowledge moves our moral goal posts.

  Incidently neither of the above are condemned by that monstrous book "The Bible".
• 

  Simon

  Without a universal absolute, we have no foundation to say that Pedophilia is or isnt wrong. Its simply an action prompted by the emotions of one or both parties involved.

  That seems like a pretty sick comment to make. "both parties involved"? is that meant to imply choice?

  The truth is that there ARE universal abolutes of right and wrong for many things and we don't need a god to define that hurting children is wrong.
• 

  Saved_JW

  We are living in the middle of a sexual revolution. Not unlike Ancient Rome.

  It was a culture that was very pornographic, and pedophilia was very much a common practice that was commonplace for adult entertainment. The purpose of a woman [wife] was to bear children and continue the legacy of the family, but the sexual entertainment came from whores and children.

  Roman religion wasnt so much focused on ethical right and wrong as we understand it today by a heavially Christianised civilization. Instead, Roman pantheism focused on Power, Fertility, and pleasure. This was the function of the gods and our human sacrifice needed to reflect those values.

  Even in that culture there was no basis to say that pedophilia was "wrong" or "right" it simply was...a fact of life. Yet another pleasure to indulge in.

  To bring this full circle, specifically American culture. We are in the midst of a sexual revolution. As we move into the Post-Christian era, I see that we are replacing the foundation of morality from judeo-christian values, to more of a post-modern value system which asserts
  "Everybody has their own truth" In other words, no absolutes.

  Mr. Dawkins comments in a way are very progressive and give a clue to what we will be experiencing in the next 10-20 years. I think pedophilia will be considered just another sexual orientation. Actually they already have a word for it.."Inter-generational love"

  By the way, by no means do I agree with Richard Dawkins, and as much as I cringe at the possibility of this happening, I have no doubt that in another 10 years, my moral objection to this practice will be considered bigoted.
• 

  Saved_JW

  The truth is that there ARE universal abolutes of right and wrong for many things and we don't need a god to define that hurting children is wrong.

  By no means am I endorsing this practice. I think its disgusting and abhorrant.

  However the reason you say its wrong, and the reason I say its wrong, are two different things.

  You asserted that there ARE universal absolutes, but do not need to include "god" as that absolute.

  Might I ask... If God isnt the moral absolute, what is? [In your opinion]
• 

  cofty

  Saved_JW - Firstly your basic premise that Dawkins is an apologist for pedophilia is 100% wrong.

  Scondly we are living in the most moral, ethical, peaceful and fairest society in all of human history.

  It only seems like we are "going to hell in a handbasket" to christians who preferred the privilege, mysogyny and homophobia of the "good old days"

  Please read "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Stephen Pinker. It ought to be required reading for every ex-JW
• 

  cofty

  Saved_JW - Theists love to feel secure in the knowledge that there is an "absolute" standard of morailty out there, like Plato's essential triangle, by which all actions can be measured.

  It is a desire that belongs to the simplicity of our childhood.

  The reality is that your "absolute" morality includes anything that your god deems good. According to your holy book "the god of Jesus Christ" sometimes favours genocide, infanticide, kidnap, rape, slavery, mysogyny and homophobia.

  Morality be divine fiat is no morality at all.
• 

  Saved_JW

  we are living in the most moral, ethical, peaceful and fairest society in all of human history.

  1- To say that we live in the most moral society you must first assume morality exists. Secondly it has to be judged by that standared. If you are measuring morality by a standard other then God, you must first establish what that standard is, and measure society by it. [Moral and Ethical are redundant]

  2- Peaceful society: I dont know where you are getting this from, but we are barely out of the 20th century which has saw more bloodshed and loss of life then any century proceeding it.

  3- Fairest society: Do I really need to prove the case here. We live in a world where 1% controlls over 90% of the wealth. I could go on and on about fairness, and it would be very easy to dismantle this ideological fairytale of yours.

  The reality is that your "absolute" morality includes anything that your god deems good. According to your holy book "the god of Jesus Christ" sometimes favours genocide, infanticide, kidnap, rape, slavery, mysogyny and homophobia.

  Morality be divine fiat is no morality at all.

  As compared to what? The reality is that your "Absolute" morality includes anything that Cofty deems good.

  therefore morality defined by decree of Coty is no morality at all.

  For anybody reading your moral rants cofty, its easy to spot out your arguments are non sequitur. [ Premise: No moral absolute / Conclusion: Peaceful, Fairness, Ethical is Good and Genocide, infanticide, kidnap, rape, slavery, mysogyny, homophibia BAD ]

  Whats ironic is that you insist on there being no moral absolute, yet you use ethics as a positive basis to demonstrate that we live in such a great culture! [without actually demonstrating what ethics actually is by the way]

  Theists love to feel secure in the knowledge that there is an "absolute" standard of morailty out there, like Plato's essential triangle, by which all actions can be measured.

  Yet at the same time [ironically enough] you are MEASURING the morality of god by some unnamed standard yourself!

  To this I can only retierate your own words:

  It is a desire that belongs to the simplicity of our childhood.
• 

  cofty

  I drew a clear distinction between "absolute" morality and "objective" morality that has NOTHING to do with anybody's personal preference.

  This is the answer to all of your previous post.

  Read Pinker's book. The world has never been better by any possible measure. The 20th century was the least dangerous per capita in history.

  Read the evidence - or just keep repeating christian fear-mongering. Your choice.