You raised an interesting subject. I didn't know Dawkins had a daughter, so I looked it up and found a letter he wrote to her when she was ten. Did he tell her "You're an atheist!"? No, he didn't.
I never said that he did. Please don't mislead. The point was, that HE would bring up HIS child the way he THOUGHT was right, and she would except it, because HE is HER father. My point was, in part, that he would not bring her up as a Modern day Christian, which could be argued to be the best way: love thy neighbour, and if your right, you live. But Dawkins is so sure, he is prepared to make certain that his daughter dies. "sins of the father"
I shall answer the letter, seeing as you have posted it. I have seen the shorter version before.
[/QUOTE]
Here's an excerpt. It's a long letter, but worth a read for anyone who might have a need to discuss deductive reasoning vs. faith to a child.
[/QUOTE]
THE LETTER WITH COMMENTS:
{You speak English but your friend speaks German. You each speak the language that fits you to swim about in your own separate people sea. Language is passed down by tradition. There is no other way.
That is correct. but it is passed down because it is useful!
In England, Pepe is a dog. In Germany he is ein Hund. Neither of these words is more correct, or more truer than the other. Both are simply handed down. In order to be good at swimming about in their people sea’, children have to learn the language of their own country, and lots of other things about their own people; and this means that they have to absorb, like blotting paper, an enormous amount of traditional information.
I think the allusion to "blotting paper" is planting the Dawkins seed that children will just accept anything you tell them. Let us be fair, they won't. Nevertheless, to also be fair, he has a point, and would apply therefore to atheist as theists.
(Remember that traditional information just means things that are handed down from grandparents to parents to children.) The childs brain has to be a sucker for traditional information. And the child cant be expected to sort out good and useful traditional information, like the words of a language, from bad or silly traditional information, like believing in witches and devils and ever-living virgins.
There we have a problem, as he has just branched into a philosophical answer. He gives no reason as to why then mention of "witches devils ever-living virgins" is false. If this is his opinion, not wishes to indoctrinate his child, he should have mentioned it: "This my child, is my opinion! I have no evidence for it other than "I" have not seen or experienced them". We also have to question what he thinks witches devils and ever-living virgins actually are; for if his information is wrong, then surely he will misunderstand and then pass on the same to his beloved daughter, who he is so desperate to make sure she dies.
Its a pity, but it cant help being the case, that because children have to be suckers for traditional information, they are likely to believe anything the grown-ups tell them, whether true or false, right or wrong.
That is only when they are young though, which I think most people could work out for themselves. This idea of "traditional information" is also somewhat misleading, as "language" is of use. It is also something we experience, as we do God, and therefore wish to pass that on, as any loving parent would, not wishing to see their child die.
Lots of what grown-ups tell them is true and based on evidence or at least sensible.
It is all based on evidence of some sort, the point is that some do not accept the evidence as THEY personally have not experienced it. Therefore this would seem to be a false premise to set up.
But if some of it is false, silly or even wicked, there is nothing to stop the children believing that too. Now, when the children grow up, what do they do? Well, of course, they tell it to the next generation of children. So, once something gets itself strongly believed even if its completely untrue and there never was any reason to believe it in the first place it can go on forever.
Not all children will carry on believing just because their parent did. That is FACT. Again he scatters his seed of opinion around in the form of "completely untrue" "false" "silly" "wicked", what evidence does he have, what is he speaking of? I for one did not believe until I was 41. I no many who fall away when older.
Could this be what happened with religions? Belief that there is a god or gods, belief in Heaven, belief that Mary never died, belief that Jesus never had a human father, belief that prayers are answered, belief that wine turns into blood not one of these beliefs is backed up by any good evidence. Yet millions of people believe them.
Really? At least this time he does pose it as a question. It does NOT say that Miriam never died in the NT. It DOES say that Yahshuah had a human father. There IS evidence for prayers answered (so I don't know why he mentions that). Wine does not literally turn into blood, or else people would spit it out. It is only literal in the sense of being spiritual. Millions of people believing should give one concern as to whether they are right or not, rather than dimissing it just because he has no experience of it. If he, and a group of people have never had headaches, does that mean they don't exist??
Perhaps this is because they were told to believe them when they were young enough to believe anything.
not in my case, nor many others. Does your daughter believe in God Mr Atheist Richard Dawkins?
Millions of other people believe quite different things, because they were told different things when they were children. Muslim children are told different things from Christian children, and both grow up utterly convinced that they are right and the others are wrong. Even within Christians, Roman Catholics believe different things from Church of England people or Episcopalians, Shakers or Quakers, Mormons or Holy Rollers, and all are utterly convinced that they are right and the others are wrong. They believe different things for exactly the same kind of reason as you speak English and someone speaks German.
they believe what they believe because that is what God gave them, everything is an evolving-consciousness. This simple yet complex answer seems to be too difficult for Dawkins to comprehend, even though QM backs it up according to some scientists. Everything being fractal, would evolve the way it has, so one would expect to see it.
Both languages are, in their own country, the right language to speak. But it cant be true that different religions are right in their own countries, because different religions claim that opposite things are true. Mary cant be alive in the Catholic Republic but dead in Protestant Northern Ireland.
Yes it can, it is fractal; the point here is, Dr Dawkins, you don't know what you are talking about.
What can we do about all this? It is not easy for you to do anything, because you are only ten. But you could try this. Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?
So we should not believe the English language then, as it is through tradition and not scientifically proposed. We should not keep driving on the left hand side of the road in England.
And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: What kind of evidence is there for that? And if they cant give you a good answer, I hope youll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.}
rightly so; but the true evidence is proof; and proof of God is WITHIN and therefore not seen by blind fathers and their indoctrinated (however gently that they do it) fathers. If one wishes to believe that food comes from a supermarket and never from a farm, and that perhaps farms don't even exist, and those who say that they do are deluded, one is free to do that. It does not make it true however. Perhaps we should give more respect to those who say they do. Perhaps we should believe those who say they have a headache, without thinking that "I" PERSONALLY, MUST experience this, otherwise I shall not believe in it, even if two thirds of the planet believe in it, even if their book is the best selling in the world, even if they have for thousands of years believed, even if it explains where we come from and why we are here, even if in any land you care to mention, people have the same CORE beliefs. What should one do with that? It appears according to Dawkins, that we should ignore it, in other words the largest part of the planet, the largest part of the human race, even top scientists like Collins and also half the scientific world, which interestingly, he did not mention. Could it be that he has an agenda? It appears so. The analogy of the parachute is fitting I feel. Perhaps he should have said this to his daughter:
"Darling, if you are in a plane and the plane is going to crash, and someone says 'Put this parachute on, but it might not open, as they were not packed very well', in fact none of them have yet, and therefore there is no evidence to back up his suggestion, of putting it on, of being of any use, I hope you will think carefully before putting it on. Of course it might open, but I am sure it will not, though I don't actually know, it is just my opinion, but you should listen to me as I am a scientist, and we know everything..your Daddy".
