I think that Mike Gene makes a good point that Richard Dawkins' or Jerry Coyne's claim that parents' teaching children religious dogma is child abuse is unsupported by the evidence, and that
"the mistake that Coyne and Dawkins make is in wanting to substitute a moral claim with a clinical/medical claim. They would be on very solid ground in saying it is wrong to teach your children to murder others for their beliefs. But because they are atheists who believe there is no objective essence to such morality claims, they need something stronger than morality – a claim of child abuse...."
and that
"...if you really feel the need to make this illegal, then simply make it
illegal to teach your children it is okay to murder other people."
But then I wondered whether or not we currently have such policies. If someone teaches their children that murdering other people is okay, is there a current legal basis for taking their children away? If not, should there be?
12 comments:
"...atheists who believe there is no objective essence to such morality claims..."
No, morality is independent of the god question. This was understood thousands of years ago in the form of the Euthyphro dilemma.
Mike Gene is rather fanatical and likely a lost cause. You can do better than to follow him.
I highly doubt that is the same Mike Gene. As to the question of objective morality, how would an atheist consistently hold that there is such a thing?
That absolutely is the Mike Gene you quoted. That should already be clear because the quote you gave is also a crazy rant.
On the Google Groups page, click on the settings icon and select "Revert to the old Google Groups". Then "View profile" and look at the email address. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22mikebgene%40aol.com%22
As I said, it's the Euthyphro dilemma. Very old.
Sorry, Luca, but your directions are way beyond my old, low-tech brain's ability to follow. If you really think this is the same Mike Gene, feel free to post it at his blog.
Meanwhile, you haven't explained how an atheist could consistently believe in an objective morality.
First things first. You can't duck out of this. There's nothing difficult or high-tech about it. The settings icon is the gear.
There's also another way -- on the message itself is a "show original" option, which gives the aol.com address.
I'm not ducking out on anything. If you want to make this accusation, then make the accusation to Mike Gene. Or are you afraid of being exposed as a gossip and slanderer?
Luca,
It is an accusation. If you wish to continue making it, do so at Mike Gene's blog. Otherwise, I will accuse you of being a coward. Meanwhile, why don't you address the question of how an atheist can consistently believe in objective morality?
Luca,
When you want to accuse someone of something, there is a proper way to do it:
First, confront the person you want to accuse directly with the information. If they do not offer a proper explanation of the "facts," then go to other people with the information and ask them to check it out.
You have not followed this procedure. Please do so.
As to my views on 9/11, if you have some facts that I have denied, kindly let me know what they are, but preferably on one of my 9/11 posts.
Luca,
I have made no such claims one way or the other. I have asked you to confront Mike Gene yourself about this matter. The fact that you refuse to do so makes it clear that your accusations are baseless.
Luca,
If Mike Gene can't deny your charges, then why don't you go make them at his blog?
Luca,
You haven't answered my question.
Luca,
Up until now, I've at least been reading your comments. Since you won't answer my question and since you won't directly confront Mike with your accusations, from now on I will just delete your comments without even reading them.
Post a Comment