I'm almost off my "new" atheist kick but I did reread some of the God Delusion and finally fished the last two chapters. I knew the "childhood, abuse and religion" would be a tough chapter for me as I have ambivalent feelings about my own childrens' religious training. I can't go all the way with Dawkins and still believe there is a developmental element to religion, something one grows out of and/or into a deeper, less institutional faith. Dawkins would clearly disagree. Still, I am struck, as Dawkins points out, by how easily society allows and even encourages adults to indoctrinate children into a religion. Even knowing that this indoctrination will, for many, necessarily lead to a lot of pain and anger as the child questions the inconsistencies, guilt, hatred, fear etc. later in life. This problem is unintentionally highlighted by Nick Seaton, spokesman for a conservative religious group: "To present all faiths as equally valid is wrong. Everybody is entitled to think their faith is superior to others, be they Hindus, Jews, Muslims or Christians--otherwise what's the point in having faith?" (340 qtd in Dawkins). Yes, what an entitlement it is!!
But Dawkins goes much further than I can. He asserts several times in this chapter that religious indoctrination of children is as bad or even worse than sexual abuse of a child. That just doesn't make sense. For one, you can't untwine religious belief from culture, identity, and parental love--they are interrelated and religious faith is not all while sexual abuse is one thing. Two, even if parents do not bring up a child in a religion they will necessarily inculcate many values which are contradictory, ineffective, and certainly some immoral. We can't escape human weakness by crushing religion. Of course many of these familiar secular beliefs or practices won't be tied up with the institutional power of a church but certainly *some* mothers and fathers can encourage as much or more guilt concerning secular concerns as the worst of religions.
Again I agree with Hedges that these human tendencies (to control for example) are in the human heart and would exist without religious institutions. Not that institutions can't and do not often justify and give place for these tendencies to work; they most certainly do. Of course, this assertion by no means indicates that I'm completely at ease about my complicitness with my own children's religious upbringing. I continually wonder how far to push. But I am confident that expressing confidence in their ability to think for themselves is more important than jamming down their throats my version of how things work. No sense exchanging one indoctrination for another--parenting has to be rhetorical, right?
Ok, so I'm not quite off this topic; promise to discuss my current sci-fi readings next time.
5 comments:
okay...so maybe this is too personal, but when I made my break from religion I felt like I went a little "crazy" for a while. Like I had to completely restructure my identity and my world view. I wasn't sure who I was anymore or what I dared believe because I felt such an enormous sense of betrayal and anger. I still feel that way at times but I'm working through it. I think some idealogies are more dangerous than others. Any time you present something to a child in a way that instructs this IS reality rather than...this is my interpretation of reality is wrong and while I wouldn't go as far as to call in abuse, it is nonetheless a lot of other adjectives that maybe are just as malevolent. Brainwashing, indoctrination, manipulation to name a few. (but perhaps as you suggested, religion isn't the only institution to do this) But when it comes down to placing blame, it's hard to fault the parents specifically when they are part of the larger insidious meme. They were duped too. I applaud the modern outspoken atheists for their courage in trying to take on that meme even though I think in many ways it's a futile effort and perhaps a very ineffective, fire with fire method.
what about the possibility that religious "indocrination" can be meaningful even when a person abandons that religion? my parents were/are quite religious and their beliefs were a central aspect of my upbringing. they were confident in their beliefs, but not forceful or maniacal. I abandoned those beliefs, and while it has caused some pain for all of us, we still have good relationships. And while I no longer hold the religious beliefs I was born with, I am confident that being raised with those beliefs made me the person I am. my sense of compassion, my desire to impact the world in a positive way, the close relationship I have with my family--all of that connects back to my religious upbringing. I find Dawkins' assertion about religion as abuse offensive. can religion be a tool for abuse? absolutely, but so can a thousand other things. Religion is unfairly used as an easy scapegoat for many human failings. I was raised in a religious home, but I never once felt indoctrinated and certainly not abused. Even though I have no active religious practice now, I wouldn't change my religious upbringing for anything.
Although I've not read any of these New Atheist authors, I've been following these posts and related articles for a while. What strikes me about the New Atheists is how old and simple the essential argument their making is.
When I was young I listened to many punk rock bands and industrial music. The basic gist was two chords and an attitude. And most of what thew were saying was religion was bad and corrupting, and the powers that be were manipulating you with it. Kids liked it because it was a bold thesis that subverted their parents, and that's how they sold records.
So I ask, what is so interesting about Dawkins? Is he just the first author to pick up the intellectual mantle of Sid Vicious?
I agree with lis's assessment of the matter which has some similarities to my own religious upbringing and subsequent experience. So much of what I am derives from my family's religious beliefs and practice. I was thinking about this last night as I was cutting out cookies--even my poetic sensibility derives from it. I could list a thousand things that I find valuable from my religious background. I would be offended by Dawkins except I find this claim, as you've represented it, in its generality to be risible. As lis said, "can religion be a tool for abuse? absolutely, but so can a thousand other things." It's called enculturation, for good or ill.
Having had pretty much no religious upbringing, I cannot speak from any sort of experience what "indoctrination" was like or not like. Actually, I think not having a religion as a child within a community that was/is obsessed with religion has spurred my interest int he phenomenon of religion.
When I was reading the God Delusion, I kept wondering why Dawkins so easily dispatched cultural phenomena as unimportant AND a-biological. What I mean is that he goes on and on and on about how what we are genetically and physically is because of natural selection, but he will not concede that something like language and culture or religion as a phenomenon caused by our evolution.
I very much believe that religion is a response to something in nature that was obviously favored in our natural selection. Perhaps religion helped people survive and produce more offspring? Who knows. It certainly is perplexing since the arbiters of religion (priests/priestesses) were often celibate (Vestal Virgins for example) or advocated strict control of sexual behavior on the part of the flock. Despite what Christianity and Islam wish to purport, ancient polytheistic religions were just about as puritanical as modern monotheistic ones (with a few notable exceptions.)
As an example, I might cite Hinduism. While it certainly is a modern religion and is basically monotheistic these days, it has very strict controls on sexual behavior. Women, for example, were until very recently only allowed to sing love songs about Lord Krishna, and that in the guise of his wife. To sing from one's own perspective about your lover would be scandalous.
So what is fascinating is how can religion be so sexually controlling of people yet survive evolutionarily? Perhaps it is not surviving?
In any case, religion has evolved as a system to order human interaction.
Post a Comment