• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Richard Dawkins on Children

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Staff member
Premium Member
Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

I don't see that as a good reason why parents shouldn't proclaim them into a religion. It's useless to do but that doesn't mean it's wrong or we ought not to. Whatever makes people feel more comfortable.
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
I sort of agree with him. I am not raising my children in my religion yet because I don't think they are able to understand it. My parents did the same with me.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
We shouldn't do it.
Also, we shouldn't stop anyone from doing it.
I think Dawkins point is more that we shouldn't believe it, when someone claims it. And that we should also feel free to say what a ridiculous idea it it to claim that a six year old has a taken a theological position. Treating a ridiculous claim as ridiculous is not the same as stopping someone from doing something.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
fantôme profane;3748909 said:
I think Dawkins point is more that we shouldn't believe it, when someone claims it. And that we should also feel free to say what a ridiculous idea it it to claim that a six year old has a taken a theological position. Treating a ridiculous claim as ridiculous is not the same as stopping someone from doing something.
That makes sense, but I addressed a different aspect of the issue.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
I very much don’t think parents should impose aspects of their religious beliefs on a child, namely the teaching of religious theology as fact, or the invasive involvement of ritualistic proceedings such as circumcision. It ultimately represents child abuse, which ranges from mild to the more severe.

Young children are vulnerable people, and the duty of the parents is to act in the best interest of the child. Purposefully teaching theology as fact is an insidious manipulation, as children are very receptive and impressionable at such a young age.

Its one thing to involve your children in a general cultural way of life, introducing them to customs and practices that helps flavour their background and teach them about social life. Its another thing to manipulate their personhood by indoctrination through the teaching of theology as fact or the invasive unconsented action of something like circumcision.

I think there needs to be a general shift towards marked disapprovement of such things in the hope that it becomes less prevalent. It needs highlighting as morally questionable as opposed to being side-lined as a harmless cultural norm.

Through a case by case assessment (as the only real means of checking) cases of abuse should be flagged, and in some cases i think prosecution could be warranted, as law and governance is there if not primarily for the protection of the vulnerable and defenceless.
 

ametist

Active Member
Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

I very much agree. Kids can learn to be a good people from their parents but it is kid's freedom to choose his/her own religion or the lack of it. Kids should be provided with a good library, an open talk about everything they ask but they should be reminded always that they have this freedom to choose whatever they want as a religion or no religion.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

Richard Dawkins says a lot of things about this subject, we should not set out our store necessarily by his opinions. He is the one who does not want you to call your child a, "Catholic child", in case the child is so use to it they just accept it. Such a terrible thing it would be if they did of course: If they are right they live and if not they die, but it appears he has some privileged knowledge that others don't know, that he can gamble with someone else's life, in fact, their child's life. Yet this is also the same man who has held "atheist camps" where they do all manner of things to try and make them atheist without actually mentioning the fact, wrapping it up in the idea of "free thinking", which he seems incapable of doing on the subject, even though there is half the scientific world who believe, and some top scientists. No doubt his daughter is atheist/agnostic. I wonder why? Did he tell her that is what she was? Probably not, but oh, we could imagine the subtle hints going on for sure.

So, I see no reason in saying that they are Catholic or Muslim or whatever. Of course if one is going to beat them over the head with a stick to do so, then it would be wrong: but one would hope that was taken for granted anyway. Should we stop them thinking that solid looking things are solid? After all, that is the allusion that atoms give. There are many examples one could give, but, he has an agenda. I feel that most of his gripe is with either America and there literal interpretation of Genesis, or the Middle East and Muslims; none of which is really a good premise to place an argument from as he does, whatever it might be, but is sure good at placing oneself in a bigoted frame of mind. He and others have become, in the opinion of many now, as fundamentalist as the ones he speaks of. Don't wish to go on so much about him, but it is important to know where he comes from. He is not a reliable voice on this.
 

SkylarHunter

Active Member
Parents have the right and the duty to educate their children. If they are religious it's only natural they will raise their kids in their religion. However, the children should have the right to make their own choices once they become adults.
I don't agree with baptizing or circumcising babies precisely because it is forcing them into a commitment they are not old enough to make.
As for Dawkins, he's a devoted atheist and I'm sure those are the values he passed to his family so he's no different from any other parent.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

And to cancel teaching it in schools,and if the child asked why we are here,how we came here then we have to tell him/her "evolution",we were somehow looked like monkeys before we are better shaped.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

If understanding a religion were a requirement for membership therein they could stop building churches right now.
 

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

I agree, because i think calling a young child with a religious label is more about the parents than it is really about the child.

I understand why some parents feel it's necessary or preferable to teach and identify their children with a certain religion, but i think it's mostly a selfish choice, even though it's sometimes of course also partially motivated by perception of what's supposedly best for those children.

It's not always really harmful or necessarily inhibiting, and sometimes it can even bring some benefits, and it's mostly about tradition in my view, but i think more often than not these early identifications do provide inhibitions for a child unnecessarily.

In some areas, that might be inescapable. In the case of religion, i don't think it is, even though like i said i understand how some people view it as necessary due to some of their beliefs.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I think the idea of calling a young child a Christian is more about seeing them as part of a close-knit community rather than seeing them as holding a perspective about Christianity. Christians rarely agree with each other in a free society where one isn't at risk of being hanged or burnt at the stake, and can freely exchange views about the nature of the Trinity, if Genesis was real or allegory, the Fall of Man, same-sex marriage, sex and sexuality, and gender roles.

I see calling a child a "Christian" as the expansion of the nuclear family unit.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
And to cancel teaching it in schools,and if the child asked why we are here,how we came here then we have to tell him/her "evolution",we were somehow looked like monkeys before we are better shaped.

This gets down to the values of the society. If the society supports scientific values then that society would teach their children science.

== back to the OP

A nice addition to Dawkins' idea is an idea from one of his buddies, Daniel Dennett. Dennett (also a non-believer) proposes that we should add factually-based, non-judgmental, "comparative religion" classes to our schools' curriculums.

I love it!...

_____________
"without love in the game, insanity's king"
 
Last edited:

steeltoes

Junior member
What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

I would have loved it if there was someone like Dawkins around when I was growing up and forced to go to church every Sunday.

Forcing a child to go to church every Sunday against his/her will is child abuse.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

Considering my experiences with both Catholicism and particularly Spiritism, I must say that he makes a lot of sense.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
If understanding a religion were a requirement for membership therein they could stop building churches right now.

There is a minimum level of understanding that makes it sensible to call oneself a practicioner. And children not only aren't capable of it, they are often assumed to have no right of opinion on the matter anyway.

That is wrong on so many levels, demeaning and disgusting. It is no less than family abuse.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Richard Dawkins says a lot of things about this subject, we should not set out our store necessarily by his opinions. He is the one who does not want you to call your child a, "Catholic child", in case the child is so use to it they just accept it. Such a terrible thing it would be if they did of course: If they are right they live and if not they die, but it appears he has some privileged knowledge that others don't know, that he can gamble with someone else's life, in fact, their child's life. Yet this is also the same man who has held "atheist camps" where they do all manner of things to try and make them atheist without actually mentioning the fact, wrapping it up in the idea of "free thinking", which he seems incapable of doing on the subject, even though there is half the scientific world who believe, and some top scientists. No doubt his daughter is atheist/agnostic. I wonder why? Did he tell her that is what she was? Probably not, but oh, we could imagine the subtle hints going on for sure.

So, I see no reason in saying that they are Catholic or Muslim or whatever. Of course if one is going to beat them over the head with a stick to do so, then it would be wrong: but one would hope that was taken for granted anyway. Should we stop them thinking that solid looking things are solid? After all, that is the allusion that atoms give. There are many examples one could give, but, he has an agenda. I feel that most of his gripe is with either America and there literal interpretation of Genesis, or the Middle East and Muslims; none of which is really a good premise to place an argument from as he does, whatever it might be, but is sure good at placing oneself in a bigoted frame of mind. He and others have become, in the opinion of many now, as fundamentalist as the ones he speaks of. Don't wish to go on so much about him, but it is important to know where he comes from. He is not a reliable voice on this.
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.

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.

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. 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. (Remember that traditional information just means things that are handed down from grandparents to parents to children.) The child’s brain has to be a sucker for traditional information. And the child can’t 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.
It’s a pity, but it can’t 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. Lots of what grown-ups tell them is true and based on evidence or at least sensible. 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.
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. Perhaps this is because they were told to believe them when they were young enough to believe anything.
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.
Both languages are, in their own country, the right language to speak. But it can’t be true that different religions are right in their own countries, because different religions claim that opposite things are true. Mary can’t be alive in the Catholic Republic but dead in Protestant Northern Ireland.
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?’ 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 can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
Your loving,

Daddy
Richard Dawkins letter to his 10 year old daughter (how to warn your child about this irrational world) | The Rational Response Squad
 
Top