UNC study refutes Richard Dawkins’ claim of religion as “child abuse”

[MCWAY]

In The God Delusion and other writings, Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about religion (specifically, the doctrine of hell) is a form of child abuse that scars children for life. Accordingly, Dawkins states, "Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds." Conspicuously absent in his writings are any published studies documenting that teaching children religious principles might adversely affect them. Since Dawkins claims to always rely upon science as the basis for his beliefs, why didn't he cite any science in support of his claims?

The following link also cites graphs, regarding the importance of religion and church attendance, versus the likelihood of committing certain offenses among teenagers. Consistently we see a lower number of offenders among those on one extreme (high church attendance and religion being very important) and higher number of offenders among those on the other extreme (low/no church attendance and religion not being important).

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_as_child_abuse.html

The question is asked:

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about religion amounts to a form of child abuse. If this is true, shouldn't the data show that religious youth are more prone to having more problems with parents, their peers, and authorities (like those who experience physical child abuse) than those who are non-religious?



And, there was a consistently HIGHER number of teens, with high church attendance and religion being very important, doing volunteer work.






"These graphs show that those whose minds have been 'subverted' by the 'evils' of religion exercise more frequently and volunteer more to help in their communities. It would indeed be a strange outcome that 'child abuse" would cause youths to behave in this manner."

With Dawkins, claiming that the alleged abuse from religion is far worse than actual physical/sexual abuse, one would think that kids who view religion as important and frequently attend church, would be cutting up EVEN MORE than those who'd been beaten, molested, or raped. But, alas, that ain't the case.

I'm sure teachers in public schools would appreciate this graphic:





The UNC (Chapel Hill) study, involving 2500 adolescents, can be seen here:

http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf

[loco]

Conspicuously absent in his writings are any published studies documenting that teaching children religious principles might adversely affect them. Since Dawkins claims to always rely upon science as the basis for his beliefs, why didn't he cite any science in support of his claims?

Good question!

[MCWAY]

Good question!

Indeed it is, especially since Dawkins claims that religious indoctrination is WORSE than physical/sexual abuse. By that logic, we should be seeing teens (with heavy religious background) acting a fool and cutting up even more. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, at least not according to this UNC study.

From my experience, I’ve heard people talk about a number of reasons why kids do such dastardly things. For some strange reason, constant attendance of church and Sunday/Sabbath school and exposure to God-fearing parents hardly comes to the forefront.

Part of the reason for his ill feelings towards Christianity may stem from his being molested by a clergyman, as a child. But, that still doesn't substantiate his claims of religion being "child abuse". Others have been molested (I know people who've gone through that, personally). But, they certainly didn't paint their religious beliefs in such a manner.

[OzmO]

In The God Delusion and other writings, Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about religion (specifically, the doctrine of hell) is a form of child abuse that scars children for life.

that's pretty stupid.

How about the story of Hansel and Gretel? 

[MCWAY]

that's pretty stupid.

How about the story of Hansel and Gretel? 

To say nothing of the Lion King!! 

Again, I don't recall any adults that I know, who've suffered abuse, claiming that having worship at home, thanking God for your food before eating, or going to Sunday school, scarred them and fueled their self-destructive behaviors.

[wavelength]

I really don't understand why there is so much buzz about Dawkins, it's not like he tells us anything new. He just repeats the simplest and most unprofound critique of religion there is and combines it with his delusions of grandeur. How he claims to "convert" people to atheism with his simplistic, reductionistic nonsense in the preamble of "God Delusion" is just plain goofy.

[MCWAY]

I really don't understand why there is so much buzz about Dawkins, it's not like he tells us anything new. He just repeats the simplest and most unprofound critique of religion there is and combines it with his delusions of grandeur. How he claims to "convert" people to atheism with his simplistic, reductionistic nonsense in the preamble of "God Delusion" is just plain goofy.

He appears to be the "flavor of the month" among atheists, in that he's more in-your-face about his lack of belief and his determination to rid the world of religious belief, especially Christianity.

Atheists rarely tell us anything new. From what I've seen, many have simply rehashed old arguments from the so-called "Enlightenment Period", that Christian scholars of that era, as well as those in the 19th and 20th century, have thoroughly cut to ribbons.

[wavelength]

He appears to be the "flavor of the month" among atheists, in that he's more in-your-face about his lack of belief and his determination to rid the world of religious belief, especially Christianity.

Atheists rarely tell us anything new. From what I've seen, many have simply rehashed old arguments from the so-called "Enlightenment Period", that Christian scholars of that era, as well as those in the 19th and 20th century, have thoroughly cut to ribbons.

We certainly do not agree on everything, but that one we can agree upon.
It's indeed the old "enlightenment" arguments he uses. Although I would restrict that to the scientifically oriented thinkers of the enlightenment period.

[Necrosis]

We certainly do not agree on everything, but that one we can agree upon.
It's indeed the old "enlightenment" arguments he uses. Although I would restrict that to the scientifically oriented thinkers of the enlightenment period.

what arguments do you have for the existence of a god, and not a pantheistic one?

[wavelength]

what arguments do you have for the existence of a god, and not a pantheistic one?

The topic was what argument does Dawkins have against any form of God. He has none.
A serious critique of religion as performed by the great philospohic and theologic thinkers is valid of course.
Pantheistic or not, the discussion makes no sense as long as we are lost in the trap of scientific positivism.
We will always talk at cross-purpose.

[MCWAY]

Actually, the topic is Dawkins' apparent lack of scientific backing to his claim that religion (particularly Christianity) is child abuse.

This study from UNC consistently shows that teens who value religious faith and frequently attend church have lower instances of bad behavior than those who don't see faith as being that important and attend church sparingly.

Per Dawkins claim, religion is WORSE than being molested (which happened to him by a parishioner) or physically beaten. Physically/sexually abused children tend to exhibit more bad behaviors.

Therefore, if religion is worse than physical/sexual abuse, why aren't all these kids acting up and acting worse than their non-believing counterparts?

[wavelength]

Actually, the topic is Dawkins' apparent lack of scientific backing to his claim that religion (particularly Christianity) is child abuse.

This study from UNC consistently shows that teens who value religious faith and frequently attend church have lower instances of bad behavior than those who don't see faith as being that important and attend church sparingly.

Per Dawkins claim, religion is WORSE than being molested (which happened to him by a parishioner) or physically beaten. Physically/sexually abused children tend to exhibit more bad behaviors.

Therefore, if religion is worse than physical/sexual abuse, why aren't all these kids acting up and acting worse than their non-believing counterparts?

You're right of course, I was talking about my post that got responded to.
His claims in the above regards are also ludicrous of course.

[Dos Equis]

I really don't understand why there is so much buzz about Dawkins, it's not like he tells us anything new. He just repeats the simplest and most unprofound critique of religion there is and combines it with his delusions of grandeur. How he claims to "convert" people to atheism with his simplistic, reductionistic nonsense in the preamble of "God Delusion" is just plain goofy.

I agree.  I saw him in an interview and was not impressed. 

[Necrosis]

The topic was what argument does Dawkins have against any form of God. He has none.
A serious critique of religion as performed by the great philospohic and theologic thinkers is valid of course.
Pantheistic or not, the discussion makes no sense as long as we are lost in the trap of scientific positivism.
We will always talk at cross-purpose.

god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms. Name one philospohic or theologian that presented any arguments worth anything for the existence of an ominipresent, omnipostent, all loving god. Or a cosmic intelligence that actively participates in creation. Any philosophical argument you like, who aquinas, maimondes? all jibberish and easy to refute, an argument without axioms is no argument at all.

The unmoved mover? utter garbage, spinoza is the only thing worth worth a damn. What trap of positivism, logical positivism includes reason and is the correct paradigm. No other paradigm has any evidence for its existence whatsoever.

present me one argument for the existence of anything immaterial, anything spiritual, ANYTHING a rational argument, to empirical evidence.

[wavelength]

god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms. Name one philospohic or theologian that presented any arguments worth anything for the existence of an ominipresent, omnipostent, all loving god. Or a cosmic intelligence that actively participates in creation. Any philosophical argument you like, who aquinas, maimondes? all jibberish and easy to refute, an argument without axioms is no argument at all.

The unmoved mover? utter garbage, spinoza is the only thing worth worth a damn. What trap of positivism, logical positivism includes reason and is the correct paradigm. No other paradigm has any evidence for its existence whatsoever.

present me one argument for the existence of anything immaterial, anything spiritual, ANYTHING a rational argument, to empirical evidence.

There is no scientific prove of God. That's what you are looking for, I assume. Simply because science is not concerned with that topic. Only the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Dawkins, Atkins, Sagan, etc. think it is.

Science does not explain anything in reality. Science e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is. These are philosophical topics. Science only takes certain concepts as a given, turns them into a model and produces theories within these models. It's impossible that with such a method you will ever be able to explain reality or answer its great questions.

The trap of scientific positivists is that they think there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects of it. That however is easily refuted by simple logic, as done in the aforementioned thread. As long as you are in this position and I am in mine, we will talk at cross-purpose. That's what I meant.

[Necrosis]

There is no scientific prove of God. That's what you are looking for, I assume. Simply because science is not concerned with that topic. Only the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Dawkins, Atkins, Sagan, etc. think it is.

Science does not explain anything in reality. Science e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is. These are philosophical topics. Science only takes certain concepts as a given, turns them into a model and produces theories within these models. It's impossible that with such a method you will ever be able to explain reality or answer its great questions.

The trap of scientific positivists is that they think there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects of it. That however is easily refuted by simple logic, as done in the aforementioned thread. As long as you are in this position and I am in mine, we will talk at cross-purpose. That's what I meant.

You avoided my question, provide any philosophical argument for the existence of a god. First define what you mean by god then support your contention with any form of reason you choose. You are wrong in that science does not deal with god, if an intelligent being intervenes and operates within our natural world he is subject to science. If he performs miracles he is subject to science. Also if science can explain all that is worth explaining that leaves god without a job. Again god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms, provide some and id be happy to change my stance.

[wavelength]

You avoided my question, provide any philosophical argument for the existence of a god. First define what you mean by god then support your contention with any form of reason you choose. You are wrong in that science does not deal with god, if an intelligent being intervenes and operates within our natural world he is subject to science. If he performs miracles he is subject to science. Also if science can explain all that is worth explaining that leaves god without a job. Again god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms, provide some and id be happy to change my stance.

Asking for a philosophical argument for the existence of God is like asking for the knowledge that fills libraries. If you want a definition of God, read spiritual scripture. All we can do in such a thread is scratch on the surface. As to your argument regarding science, I already said, science doesn't explain anything. It e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is.

[Necrosis]

Asking for a philosophical argument for the existence of God is like asking for the knowledge that fills libraries. If you want a definition of God, read spiritual scripture. All we can do in such a thread is scratch on the surface. As to your argument regarding science, I already said, science doesn't explain anything. It e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is.

there are no good philosophical arguments for god, thats why there has been no improvment on ancient writings on theology, no new arguments, nothing that hasnt been refuted. You side step every quesiton posed to you, give me your favorite philosophical argument for the existence of god.

Philosophically a omnipotent, omnipresent all loving god CANNOT exist, this can be proven through reason. Science explains how things work, your insistence that it doesnt means little. I know how reflexes work because science has explained what happens physiologically and in the nervous system. There is nothign to explain that science cant. Give me one valid question that science can not answer that is worth answering.

You keep side stepping my questions, provide and argument for god, define god and tell me a question that science cant or concevibly answer. I hope your question doesnt start with a why.

[wavelength]

there are no good philosophical arguments for god, thats why there has been no improvment on ancient writings on theology, no new arguments, nothing that hasnt been refuted. You side step every quesiton posed to you, give me your favorite philosophical argument for the existence of god.

Philosophically a omnipotent, omnipresent all loving god CANNOT exist, this can be proven through reason. Science explains how things work, your insistence that it doesnt means little. I know how reflexes work because science has explained what happens physiologically and in the nervous system. There is nothign to explain that science cant. Give me one valid question that science can not answer that is worth answering.

You keep side stepping my questions, provide and argument for god, define god and tell me a question that science cant or concevibly answer. I hope your question doesnt start with a why.

I have already given examples of what science can't explain (space, time, matter). Again, read the mentioned thread, everything has already been discussed there.

[Necrosis]

I have already given examples of what science can't explain (space, time, matter). Again, read the mentioned thread, everything has already been discussed there.

why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter. Im sure its not to much trouble to state the reasons here rather then me read the thread over.

[Oldschool Flip]

How about that the number of "Christian" divorces are the same as non religious divorces in rate? If making that commitment before God's eyes is so important to them and to God, then why divorce? Let me guess, maybe it's because people are people whether they are Christians or not. Christians always tout that humanity would be better off with God, yet half of them can't stay married even with God in there lives. Not to mention that research is now showing religious men cheat more than non religious men.

[wavelength]

why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter. Im sure its not to much trouble to state the reasons here rather then me read the thread over.

Wasn't me who decided to stop the discussion. Kinda unfair to request that, right?

[MCWAY]

god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms. Name one philospohic or theologian that presented any arguments worth anything for the existence of an ominipresent, omnipostent, all loving god. Or a cosmic intelligence that actively participates in creation. Any philosophical argument you like, who aquinas, maimondes? all jibberish and easy to refute, an argument without axioms is no argument at all.

I'll name four:

Dr. D. James Kennedy, 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century; founder of Knox Theological Seminary.
Dr. Bruce Metzger, Professor Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary
Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)
Dr. Walter Brown, Center for Scientific Creation

[MCWAY]

why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter. Im sure its not to much trouble to state the reasons here rather then me read the thread over.

Perhaps a better question to ask is why believing that matter has always existed isn't a problem but believing that God has always existed is such

[wavelength]

why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter.

Just wanted to answer this question. Science can never explain what matter is made of. The current model of it is the quark model. But a quark is nothing else than a set of mathematical formulas describing certain scientific aspects of matter. It does not and can never explain what matter is "made of".