The Liberal Agnostic Secular Humanist Four-Year Old

[fhansen]

Saying it is so doesn’t make it so. Why is it nonsensical about his argument that morality should not be based on retribution?

Morality in Catholic theology is based on love-‘such and such is what love would do’. The fact that justice ultimately awaits those who prefer to act unloving or selfishly, harming others in the process, is no different from what we attempt to accomplish with our justice system and no less than what’s desired by victims of injustices perpetrated against them-and which I’m sure they’d generally prefer to see avenged at once instead of having to wait. In any case I’m glad that rape and genocide and embezzlement and whatever won’t be merely overlooked in the end-that there’s cosmic relevance to what we do.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Dawkins does not reject objective basis for morality. In fact, as an evolutionary biologist he has a lot to say on on the matter.

You are mistaken as to the definition of Objective. He is nothing if not a subjective moralist. To his evolutionary basis for morality, what is moral is only what propagates the species.

Also, “do unto others…” is far from uniquely Christian. Virtually ever society has articulated some version of the Golden Rule. It is a very rational approach to morality that requires no special revelation. Why would anyone ever take me seriously if I do to them what I say I don’t want done to me? Dawkins and everyone else understands that logic.

It is still a part of the overall Christian moral teaching, and is certainly not limited to it, that makes children Christian before belief, which is what we were talking about before your circular and specious arguments led us to this point.

The truth of any moral proposition does not constitute evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead or born of a virgin or sent by his father (who is also himself) do die for the sins of others and impress himself enough with this act to atone all of humanity with himself.

How in the world do you get here? We are talking about morality, Christian morality. Your preconceived bias against Christianity is the basis for your rejecting Christian morality. And, of course, just because you say it, mam, doesn’t make it so (this saying is equivalent to a child sticking their tongue out at a parent). When confronted with an argument, those who can’t answer the points of that argument often change the argument to fit their bias. This is not a search for what is true, not that I am accusing you of searching for the truth.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Saying it is so doesn’t make it so. Why is it nonsensical about his argument that morality should not be based on retribution?

Responsibility is distinct from objective morality. The circumstances that make an act immoral are separate from the responsibility incurred through the person acting. Where Dawkins is wrong is in the subjective nature of morality he is a proponent of. People don’t make an act immoral just because they don’t like it. People therefore can’t make an act (retribution) moral just because they want to punish a criminal. I’m moral because I am more moral than you? Talk about “slouching toward Gomorrah”!

Morality must be based in the authority from which it came, God, or it becomes “might makes right”. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc is the fruit of that authority. Relativists of one ilk may dominate, but when another group of relativists takes power, the only thing to save the first group of relativists is an absolute morality that defines good as moral, not what is expedient at the time.

Those who want retribution are wrong because it is counter to the love of neighbor. Dawkins, in judging Christian morality by the fallen nature of all people (Christians included) is judging the ideal solely on the practice, a bastion of the intellectually bereft. Even a cursory search for the truth can exclude all of Dawkins’ writings as deficient.

 

[1holycatholic]

Responsibility is distinct from objective morality. The circumstances that make an act immoral are separate from the responsibility incurred through the person acting. Where Dawkins is wrong is in the subjective nature of morality he is a proponent of. People don’t make an act immoral just because they don’t like it. People therefore can’t make an act (retribution) moral just because they want to punish a criminal. I’m moral because I am more moral than you? Talk about “slouching toward Gomorrah”!

Morality must be based in the authority from which it came, God, or it becomes “might makes right”. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc is the fruit of that authority. Relativists of one ilk may dominate, but when another group of relativists takes power, the only thing to save the first group of relativists is an absolute morality that defines good as moral, not what is expedient at the time.

Those who want retribution are wrong because it is counter to the love of neighbor. Dawkins, in judging Christian morality by the fallen nature of all people (Christians included) is judging the ideal solely on the practice, a bastion of the intellectually bereft. Even a cursory search for the truth can exclude all of Dawkins’ writings as deficient.

The key flaw in Dawkins’ argument is his assertion that biological determinism is true which eliminates moral responsibility for any action as the individual has no causal control over their actions. Dawkins’ failure to recognize objective morality seems to be a moot point.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

The key flaw in Dawkins’ argument is his assertion that biological determinism is true which eliminates moral responsibility for any action as the individual has no causal control over their actions. Dawkins’ failure to recognize objective morality seems to be a moot point.

It seems that Dawkins doesn’t agree that he is “biological determinist”

Enough of this, let me speak plainly. Rose et al cannot substantiate their allegation about sociobiologists believing in inevitable genetic determination, because the allegation is a simple lie. The myth of the “inevitability” of genetic effects has nothing whatever to do with sociobiology, and has everything to do with Rose et al’s paranoiac and demonological theology of science. Sociobiologists, such as myself (much as I have always disliked the name, this book finally provokes me to stand up and be counted), are in the business of trying to work out the conditions under which Darwinian theory might be applicable to behaviour. If we tried to do our Darwinian theorising without postulating genes affecting behaviour, we should get it wrong. That is why sociobiologists talk about genes so much, and that is all there is to it. The idea of “inevitability” never enters their heads.

simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml

Dawkins writing in the same link:

As I am described in the book as “the most reductionist of sociobiologists”, I can speak with authority here. I believe that Bach was a musical man. Therefore of course, being a good reductionist, I must obviously believe that Bach’s brain was made of musical atoms! Do Rose et al sincerely think that anybody could be that silly? Presumably not, yet my Bach – example is a precise analogy to “Societies are ‘aggressive’ because the individuals who compose them are ‘aggressive”’

He seems more to be an evolutionary determinist, thus rejecting morality as absolute but as relative to evolution in that evolution somehow created, used, or determined that morality was a plus and not a minus in the evolution of life. Evolution is Dawkins’ God because he rejects God Himself. When you reject God, you make you want into a god, as our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.

Besides, it was the basis for the answer to the “no such thing as the Christian child” argument in the OP as well as an answer to:

leela:

Dawkins does not reject objective basis for morality. In fact, as an evolutionary biologist he has a lot to say on on the matter.

 

[1holycatholic]

He seems more to be an evolutionary determinist, thus rejecting morality as absolute but as relative to evolution in that evolution somehow created, used, or determined that morality was a plus and not a minus in the evolution of life. Evolution is Dawkins’ God because he rejects God Himself. When you reject God, you make you want into a god, as our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.

My mistake. I meant evolution.

 

[Leela]

Morality in Catholic theology is based on love-‘such and such is what love would do’. The fact that justice ultimately awaits those who prefer to act unloving or selfishly, harming others in the process, is no different from what we attempt to accomplish with our justice system and no less than what’s desired by victims of injustices perpetrated against them-and which I’m sure they’d generally prefer to see avenged at once instead of having to wait. In any case I’m glad that rape and genocide and embezzlement and whatever won’t be merely overlooked in the end-that there’s cosmic relevance to what we do.

I don’t know if you read the Dawkin’s article that was linked, but I think that what he said is consistent with Christian moral teachings. “Vengeance is mine” (not yours) says the Lord. The problem for humans is not retribution but fixing what is broken. Our justice system should not be about punishment but prevention and rehabilitation.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

It is still a part of the overall Christian moral teaching, and is certainly not limited to it, that makes children Christian before belief, which is what we were talking about before your circular and specious arguments led us to this point.

Circular and specious? Nice.

My point is that a child who is learning to “do unto others…” is not becoming Christian so much as simply becoming civilized since every civilization has articulated something like the Golden Rule independently of Christianity.

When confronted with an argument, those who can’t answer the points of that argument often change the argument to fit their bias. This is not a search for what is true, not that I am accusing you of searching for the truth.

???

Who is changing the subject?

If you can make more of an effort to be civil I’ll be glad top continue conversing with you.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Responsibility is distinct from objective morality. The circumstances that make an act immoral are separate from the responsibility incurred through the person acting. Where Dawkins is wrong is in the subjective nature of morality he is a proponent of. People don’t make an act immoral just because they don’t like it. People therefore can’t make an act (retribution) moral just because they want to punish a criminal. I’m moral because I am more moral than you? Talk about “slouching toward Gomorrah”!

Morality must be based in the authority from which it came, God, or it becomes “might makes right”. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc is the fruit of that authority. Relativists of one ilk may dominate, but when another group of relativists takes power, the only thing to save the first group of relativists is an absolute morality that defines good as moral, not what is expedient at the time.

Those who want retribution are wrong because it is counter to the love of neighbor. Dawkins, in judging Christian morality by the fallen nature of all people (Christians included) is judging the ideal solely on the practice, a bastion of the intellectually bereft. Even a cursory search for the truth can exclude all of Dawkins’ writings as deficient.

An absolute morality sounds nice. Where do we get one? Sounds like a topic for a new thread.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Circular and specious? Nice.

My point is that a child who is learning to “do unto others…” is not becoming Christian so much as simply becoming civilized since every civilization has articulated something like the Golden Rule independently of Christianity.

???

Who is changing the subject?

If you can make more of an effort to be civil I’ll be glad top continue conversing with you.

Best,
Leela

Sorry, I was basing the postings on the first post and beginning with the fifth page, I saw your rebuttals as changing the subject in reference to only my post as it had to do with teaching morality vs. belief.

 

[Leela]

Having spent some time volunteering in an orphanage in nearly suffocatingly Catholic rural Mexico in my youth, I can’t for the life of me understand how someone can claim that a four year old cannot be a believer just because spoiled American children are raised to think that the world revolves around them from the word “go”. As others have mentioned, a young child being a Christian or raised as one does not imply that they have anything other than a child’s understanding of what that might mean, but so what?

So what? Okay, but I would think it belittles Christianity to call a child a Christian who has only a “child’s understanding of what that might mean.” For example, my daughter lerans about Jesus at her school. She believes Jesus is real, but she also believes that Santa Claus is real.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t think it does. Jesus Himself says in Luke 18:17 “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

 

[severntofall]

So what? Okay, but I would think it belittles Christianity to call a child a Christian who has only a “child’s understanding of what that might mean.” For example, my daughter lerans about Jesus at her school. She believes Jesus is real, but she also believes that Santa Claus is real.

I suspect that I know which one she loves more.

 

[PRmerger]

So what? Okay, but I would think it belittles Christianity to call a child a Christian who has only a “child’s understanding of what that might mean.” For example, my daughter lerans about Jesus at her school. She believes Jesus is real, but she also believes that Santa Claus is real.

Why would it belittle Christianity? A 4yr old who has a 4yr old understanding of Christianity insults no one, belittles no concept, demeans no theology by her belief.

Again, (for the benefit of those who are joining mid-discussion), being called a Christian is a multi-dimensioned concept. An infant can be a Christian after baptism, although she can profess no faith. She is a Christian by virtue of the fact that she has now been indelibly marked for Christ. She is part of the Body of Christ. She is a Christian. Richard Dawkins, who is apparently baptized, is a Christian.

A Christian is also someone who professes belief in the redemption of humanity through the passion, death and resurrection of Christ. Richard Dawkins is not a Christian.

 

[1holycatholic]

Why would it belittle Christianity? A 4yr old who has a 4yr old understanding of Christianity insults no one, belittles no concept, demeans no theology by her belief.

Again, (for the benefit of those who are joining mid-discussion), being called a Christian is a multi-dimensioned concept. An infant can be a Christian after baptism, although she can profess no faith. She is a Christian by virtue of the fact that she has now been indelibly marked for Christ. She is part of the Body of Christ. She is a Christian. Richard Dawkins, who is apparently baptized, is a Christian.

A Christian is also someone who professes belief in the redemption of humanity through the passion, death and resurrection of Christ. Richard Dawkins is not a Christian.

If Richard Dawkins was validly baptized he is a Christian ad aeternum. He has free will and rejects Christianity.

Ontological changes are immutable.

 

[PRmerger]

If Richard Dawkins was validly baptized he is a Christian ad aeternum. He has free will and rejects Christianity.

Ontological changes are immutable.

Indeed. It would seem that the OP, Leela, is also a Christian ad aeternum yet is not a professed Christian.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hi All,

I just finished reading Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” where Dawkins raised an interesting issue that I had never thought about before. Dawkins has raised my conscioussness about the common practice of labelling children as Mulsim, Jewish, Christian, or Hindu based on the religion of their parents. But children are too young to have made up their minds about their religious beliefs. Dawkins points out that there is really no such thing as a Christian child, and we should all wince upon hearing such labels as we would if we heard children being labelled according to their parent’s beliefs as liberal or conservative children, agnostic or secular humanist children, and capitalist or marxist children.

What do you think?

Best,
Leela

This has probably been said already, but Christians get to define what it means to be ‘‘Christian’’ - not Dawkins. And if a child has been baptized, (s)he is Christian until and unless (s)he repudiates his/her faith as an adult.

His error is therefore assuming that the only definition of ‘‘Christian’’ is ‘‘one who has personally considered and freely chosen to adopt Christian beliefs.’’ That is not the case. It’s a flawed analogy.

 

[Leela]

This has probably been said already, but Christians get to define what it means to be ‘‘Christian’’ - not Dawkins. And if a child has been baptized, (s)he is Christian until and unless (s)he repudiates his/her faith as an adult.

His error is therefore assuming that the only definition of ‘‘Christian’’ is ‘‘one who has personally considered and freely chosen to adopt Christian beliefs.’’ That is not the case. It’s a flawed analogy.

You can use words to mean whatever you want, but if a Christian is not ''one who has personally considered and freely chosen to adopt Christian beliefs," then to someone like me or Dawkings who does not believe in the supernatural, it then doesn’t seem to mean very much to be called a Christian. It would be as meaningless as it would be to call a newborn baby an atheist since she does not believe in God since she has no considered beliefs whatsoever. Though meaningless to us, it may then be thought to be at least unobjectionable to do so, but the problem for me is that doing so perpetuates the sorts of divisions that result in so much strife in the world.

 

[PRmerger]

You can use words to mean whatever you want, but if a Christian is not ''one who has personally considered and freely chosen to adopt Christian beliefs," then to someone like me or Dawkings who does not believe in the supernatural, it then doe.

No one has said that a Christian is not ''one who has personally considered and freely chosen to adopt Christian beliefs". We are saying that it’s not the ONLY definition of a Christian.

 

[PRmerger]

It would be as meaningless as it would be to call a newborn baby an atheist since she does not believe in God since she has no considered beliefs whatsoever.

Calling a newborn baby a member of your family would not be meaningless.
Calling a newborn baby a member of Christ’s family is also not meaningless.