AJ Philips,

>>Dawkins explains, in the very next sentence, that his remark was, not only an off-the-cuff remark<<

The sentence you refer to, and the following, are: "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It WAS an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment …".

[If I remember properly, he said something very explicit (on Catholic education and sexual abuse) in an article that appeared, I think, also in The Dubliner years before the Catholic priests' scandal broke out in the US. Unfortunately, I do not remember who quoted him - I did not pay much attention to such things at that time - and I could not find it in The Dubliner online, so I gave you the link only to the 2002 article.]

I wonder how would you react if I said (assuming you have a child):
"horrible as sexual abuse no doubt is, the damage is arguably less than the long-term psychological damage you inflict on your child by bringing it up without religion in the first place",

and dismissed this as an "off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment" (instead of apologizing).

But then, I already suggested to accept that we have different tastes concerning these matters - and also read differently what Dawkins wrote or said - and leave it at that.

I promise not to take Dawkins' name in vain any more in posts addressed to you, lest I upset your trust in him. For the same reasons that I would not want to upset somebody's trust in Jesus or Mohamed.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for that detailed analysis. It seems there has been a misunderstanding which, in a sense, is reassuring.

I know from your posts that you think rationally and choose your words carefully as I also endeavour to do. And yet, as it has just been demonstrated, misunderstandings can still arise.

Communication (making common) is both an art and a science. And it is not something you or I can do on our own, which makes it even more difficult.

Mutual confidence (with trust, faith) is an excellent catalyst.

Perhaps I should mention I have visited Praha on two occasions and have fond memories particularly of my first visit in 1966. I stayed with the parents of a student friend I had met at the university of Reykjavik.

They were very kind and patient with me though we had no way of communicating. On the weekend we travelled by train and on foot to their little "datcha" in the forest, picking mushrooms on the way. The mother made us the best mushroom soup I have ever eaten in my life.

Praha was cold, barren and sad in those days, the people terribly poor. The shops had nothing to sell. But still there was history, culture, music and poetry in the air, in the architecture, even in the closed faces on the street.

All that was gone when I returned, in search of my memories, in 1991 following the "velvet revolution".

I was surprised to find that many of the people I met seemed to regret communism.

But then, I had an Australian passport and was just passing through.

.

George,

<<I wonder how would you react if I said (assuming you have a child):
"horrible as sexual abuse no doubt is, the damage is arguably less than the long-term psychological damage you inflict on your child by bringing it up without religion in the first place", and dismissed this as an "off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment" (instead of apologizing).>>

Firstly, the fact that it was an “off-the-cuff remark” wasn’t actually a dismissal, but it was still important when assessing the situation and his point-of-view on this matter as a whole.

Secondly, I think he gave ample reasoning for what he said (considering also that he’d said “ARGUABLEY less [damage] than...” and “it is at least POSSIBLE...”) to not owe any apologies since he had presented a reasonable case.

But how would I react if the roles were reversed? That’s a good question.

For starters, we need to remember that atheism isn’t a belief system, or something that one holds dear to their heart or is emotionally attached to. So it wouldn’t ‘hurt’ me if someone were to say that.

My initial reaction would probably be a face-palm followed by an astonished shake of the head as I thought to myself: “How blinded and foolish would you have to be, to be so certain of an unfounded belief that you’d actually claim that raising a child without your chosen belief system could be classed as psychological abuse.”

<<But then, I already suggested to accept that we have different tastes concerning these matters - and also read differently what Dawkins wrote or said - and leave it at that.>>

Well, ‘reading differently ‘ is certainly a possibility. But you’re a highly intelligent person who is very fluent in multiple languages, so I get the feeling that any understanding of Dawkins that you have is tainted purely because of your religious beliefs - despite that fact that you’re such a rational thinker. Either that or there are more sinister reasons for your misinterpreting of Dawkins, but I don’t believe you’d be sinister like that consciously.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I promise not to take Dawkins' name in vain any more in posts addressed to you, lest I upset your trust in him. For the same reasons that I would not want to upset somebody's trust in Jesus or Mohamed.>>

When I first read this I thought, “Implying that atheism is like a religion in this way is a bit beneath George”. But then I remembered that you do still often equate theism and atheism as though they were two equally opposing aspects of world-views.

I used to think your were being sneaky or disingenuous by equating the two, but your sincere question of me in regards to how I would feel in the roles were reversed made me realise otherwise. It appears that having been a Christian your whole life, you honestly don’t know what disbelief is like at all, and so it may very well be understandable that you equate the two as thought they were equally opposing positions. Although I have explained many times why it is wrong to equate the two, so...

In regards to Dawkins though, you can criticize him all you like. Heck, I will by saying that I think he’s becoming a bit too arrogant these days and that his arguments are getting a little stale. I also think that his lack of patience - at times - with theists can cause him to react childishly. But that doesn’t detract from the accuracy or relevance of his criticisms, and I’ll often stand up in his defence when I see him unfairly criticized since he is such a big target.

There are a few other outspoken atheists that I find far more witty knowledgeable than rusty ol’ Dawkins.

Dear Banjo,

>> I have visited Praha on two occasions and have fond memories particularly of my first visit in 1966.<<

I studied and lived in Prague during 1954-1965. Perhaps I should explain: I grew up and received my HSC in Bratislava. In spite of my "religious background" I was lucky enough to get to university, because the Comrades made the mistake of rewarding the country’s first three (I think) in the Mathematical Olympiad (high school students' competition) with admission to a Czechoslovak university of their choice without entry exams, which also meant without ideological/political scrutiny (next year the rewards were only financial).

So I got my degree, even a tutor's position at Charles University, until I was found out. I was sacked because as one who was “burdened by religion” (or whatever the proper translation) I was not allowed to be in contact with young people; actually more, I was not allowed to take up any job as a mathematician. I wrote my PhD thesis without a supervisor, while working as an unqualified worker in a Prague Paper Mill. Later I was "rehabilitated", but in 1968, during the Soviet-led invasion I could leave the country and settle in Australia.

A student, who in the 1960s was allowed to study at a "capitalist" University in Reykjavik would most probably belong to a "caste" very different from the one I (and the vast majority of the population) belonged to.

So, you see, I had a first-hand experience of the Communist system only until 1968, which included the worst (Stalinist) part, but not the post -1968 years when the system gradually "melted" leading to its fall in1989. However, I agree that many people over there found it hard to adjust to a life of freedom, but also personal responsibility, after decades of unfreedom: one often uses the metaphor of the lion who grew up in a zoo, but starved to death after being set free, unaccustomed to look for food on his own.

AJ Philips,

>>I remembered that you do still often equate theism and atheism as though they were two equally opposing aspects of world-views.<<
I certainly never said that but, anyhow, this is a good illustration of how we speak past each other: My sentence you apply this comment to had nothing to do with theism or atheism, but with psychology: me not wanting to upset somebody who trusts "religiously" (meaning "treated or regarded with a devotion") Jesus, Mohamed, Dawkins or whom you have.

You would nor expect me to regard Jesus and Dawkins as comparable; only the states of minds of certain sympathizers or devotees, respectively, might be comparable.

>> “How blinded and foolish would you have to be, to be so certain of an unfounded belief that you’d actually claim that raising a child without your chosen belief system (as stated and explained in your book) could be classed as psychological abuse.”<<

Actually Dawkins claimed more than that, not just psychological abuse but WORSE (with whatever qualifications) than sexual abuse. Anyhow, Is this what you suggest should be my reaction to Dawkins' position? Well, although I do not agree with Dawkins on this, such is not my way to express my disagreement. Sorry, I promised not to take his name in vain, so I should not be braking my promise.

So let me just repeat for the THIRD time:

Let us agree that we have different tastes concerning these matters and leave it at that. And also, that we have different ideas about argumentum ad hominem: I certainly do not claim to know - or even to make condescending comments on - what made you believe or not believe this or that, or that what you write is "tainted" by this or that.