BY DINESH D'SOUZA
This article is adapted from What's So Great About Christianity, which is just published by Regnery. Find out more at dineshdsouza.com.
It seems atheists have developed a comprehensive strategy to win the minds of the next generation. The strategy can be described simply: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents' beliefs. Many people think that the secularization of the minds of our young people is the inevitable consequence of learning and maturing. In fact, it is to a large degree orchestrated by teachers and professors to promote anti-religious agendas.
Consider a timely example. In recent years some parents and school boards have asked that public schools teach alternatives to Darwinian evolution. These efforts sparked a powerful outcry from the scientific and non-believing community. Defenders of evolution accuse parents and school boards of retarding the acquisition of scientific knowledge in the name of religion. The Economist editorialized that "Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis."
This is indeed so, but doesn't Darwinism have friends and supporters mostly for the same reason? Consider the alternative: the Darwinists are merely standing up for science. But surveys show that the vast majority of young people in America today are scientifically illiterate, widely ignorant of all aspects of science. How many high school graduates could tell you the meaning of Einstein's famous equation? Lots of young people don't have a clue about photosynthesis or Boyle's Law. So why isn't there a political movement to fight for the teaching of photosynthesis? Why isn't the ACLU filing lawsuits on behalf of Boyle's Law?
The answer is clear. For the defenders of Darwinism, no less than for its critics, religion is the issue. Just as some people oppose the theory of evolution because they believe it to be anti-religious, many others support it for the very same reason. This is why we have Darwinism but not Kepplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einsteinian. Darwinism has become an ideology.
The well-organized movement to promote Darwinism and exclude alternatives is part of a larger educational project in today's public schools. I'll let the champions of this project describe it in their own words. "Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate," writes Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. "Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness."
Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, writes, "How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?" Religion, he charges, has "always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young." He wistfully concludes, "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world."
If religion is so bad, what should be done about it? It should be eradicated. According to Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, belief in Christianity is like belief in slavery. "I would be the first to admit that the prospects for eradicating religion in our time do not seem good. Still the same could have been said about efforts to abolish slavery at the end of the eighteenth century."
But how should religion be eliminated? Our atheist educators have a short answer: through the power of science. "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that," says physicist Steven Weinberg. If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, "then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."
One way in which science can undermine the plausibility of religion, according to biologist E.O. Wilson, is by showing that the mind itself is the product of evolution and that free moral choice is an illusion. "If religion...can be systematically analyzed and explained as a product of the brain's evolution, its power as an external source of morality will be gone forever."
By abolishing all transcendent or supernatural truths, science can establish itself as the only source of truth, our only access to reality. The objective of science education, according to biologist Richard Lewontin, "is not to provide the public with knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of." Rather, "the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, science, as the only begetter of truth."
What, then, happens to religion? Philosopher Daniel Dennett suggests that "our religious traditions should certainly be preserved, as should the languages, the art, the costumes, the rituals, the monuments. Zoos are now more or less seen as second class havens for endangered species, but at least they are havens, and what they preserve is irreplaceable."
How is all this to be achieved? The answer is simple: through indoctrination in the schools. In his book Breaking the Spell, Dennett urges that schools teach religion as a purely natural phenomenon. By this he means that religion should be taught as if it were untrue. Dennett argues that religion is like sports or cancer, "a human phenomenon composed of events, organisms, objects, structures, patterns." By studying religion on the premise that there is no supernatural truth underlying it, Dennett argues that young people will come to accept religion as a social creation pointing to nothing higher than human hopes and aspirations.
As for atheism, Sam Harris argues that it should be taught as a mere extension of science and logic. "Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not even a view of the world. It is simply an admission of the obvious....Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
Of course, parents-especially Christian parents-might want to say something about all this. That's why the atheist educators are now raising the question of whether parents should have control over what their children learn. Dawkins asks, "How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods? Isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought out?"
Dennett remarks that "some children are raised in such an ideological prison that they willingly become their own jailers...forbidding themselves any contact with the liberating ideas that might well change their minds." The fault, he adds, lies with the parents who raised them. "Parents don't literally own their children the way slaveowners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere."
Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey argued in a recent lecture that just as Amnesty International works to liberate political prisoners around the world, secular teachers and professors should work to free children from the damaging influence of their parents' religious instruction. "Parents have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith."
Philosopher Richard Rorty argued that secular professors in the universities ought "to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own." Rorty noted that students are fortunate to find themselves under the control "of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents." Indeed, parents who send their children to college should recognize that as professors "we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable."
This is how many secular teachers treat the traditional beliefs of students. The strategy is not to argue with religious views or to prove them wrong. Rather, it is to subject them to such scorn that they are pushed outside the bounds of acceptable debate. This strategy is effective because young people who go to good colleges are extremely eager to learn what it means to be an educated Harvard man or Stanford woman. Consequently their teachers can very easily steer them to think a certain way merely by making that point of view seem fashionable and enlightened. Similarly, teachers can pressure students to abandon what their parents taught them simply by labeling those positions as simplistic and unsophisticated.
Children spend the majority of their waking hours in school. Parents invest a good portion of their life savings in college education and entrust their offspring to people who are supposed to educate them. Isn't it wonderful that educators have figured out a way to make parents the instruments of their own undoing? Isn't it brilliant that they have persuaded Christian moms and dads to finance the destruction of their own beliefs and values? Who said atheists aren't clever?
Buy WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY now!
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 12)
76. Just think of some of the many great conveniences and benefits of Darwinism for getting rid of enemies: "My gosh, let me get a good look at you. I think your skin is a different color than mine. I think you're going to have to be weeded out for the purposes of advancing natural selection. I'm really sorry about that, but you clearly haven't reached the same evolutionary state as I have."
Ridiculous? Of course. But, it happened. Adolph Hitler used Darwinism as the supposed scientific basis for trying to purify the "master race". Oops. While evolutionists vehemently disavow any
connection with "social Darwinism" it's simply a natural extension of evolutionary doctrine.
That's why believing evolution has consequences. Evolution is a house of cards which provides
insufficient explanation for the world around us.
It takes more faith to believe in it than to believe in an omnipotent creator. And all the
monkeys in the world typing for 10 billion years will never produce the works of Shakespeare.
Most people who belittle intelligent design or creation have never actually read a book or material written on the topic. Creationists have to be conversant with both positions. They don't have the luxury of being able to simply mock
evolutionists by calling them kooks instead of addressing their arguments. And the idea that all men (and women) are created equal by the hand of God? Now there's a really dangerous idea.......
Dave at 10:38PM on Oct 15th 2007
77. Actually, Hitler didn't use Darwinism at all. Only cretinists lie and say he did.
And evolution has evidence. It requires no faith. I don't know why cretinists are so terrified of evolution that they have to lie about it all the time.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:46PM on Oct 15th 2007
78. Please add:
Stalin killed 60,000,000
Hitler killed 60,000,000
Total 120,000,000 (just a statistic)
Hitler:Of Hitler himself, in early 2002, Dave Shiflett wrote:
"It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity," [Hitler] said in 1933, "because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood." His countrymen would have to choose: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."
CK at 10:54PM on Oct 15th 2007
79. Dave writes: "While evolutionists vehemently disavow any connection with "social Darwinism" it's simply a natural extension of evolutionary doctrine."
WRONG. It's a common misconception, but still wrong. Read up on social Darwinism, and you'll find that it is NOT derived from Darwin's research.
Here's a helpful quote: "While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of his theory. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century."
Tatiana at 10:58PM on Oct 15th 2007
80. As an activist atheist (the most evil kind) let me assure you that I would not be wasting my time on any of the activities that I do if it were not for the massive attack on reason mounted by the "religionists". God belongs in a church, a synagogue, a temple, or a mosque where we evil atheists really don't care what you teach. My "activism" kicks in when you try to dump your fantasy based superstition into my children's classroom through half assed not-a-theory Intelligent Design.
If you must, call intelligent design what it is, a critique of a theory. A poor one, but a critique none the less. ("We don't know what happened, but it sure wasn't what Mr. Darwin thought") Intelligent design should be taught in the science classrooom as an example of what is not a theory and also why it is such a poor critique.
As for some of the rest of my activist issues, "In God we trust", "Under God", posting (one of the three versions found in the bible) of the Ten Commandments in my kid's school, and "America was founded as a Christian Country" (whoops, the founding fathers forgot to even mention any of the thousands of gods out there in the Constitution - not one word about God - check it out...) All could go away and I would fade back into the woodwork.
D'Sousa is ridiculous to whimper that there is no organization behind Boyle's law. I can tell you from my side of the tracks that the reason I'm not out there as a Boyleist is because there aren't any religionists trying to teach my children about the law of the pressure of God's gas...
Steve at 11:16PM on Oct 15th 2007
81. It would be interesting to know what these atheists think of libertarian philosophers, such as Ayn Rand.
A true libertarian believes that one can do as one plesase, so long as it doesn't harm others. For example, one can enjoy any type of music, so long as it isn't played so loud that the pictures are falling off the walls of the neighbors' houses.
My guess is these atheists despise libertarians, becasue they otherwise wouldn't care what faith their students might have.
Kent at 12:18AM on Oct 16th 2007
82. I'm an anarchocapitalist, Kent. Looks like your idea is shot down in flames.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:24AM on Oct 16th 2007
83. You can't indoctrinate people into Atheism. Atheism has no doctrine. Atheism is the default position from which all of us begin our lives. All kids are atheists (they don't have any belief in god) until they are indoctrinated by their parents.
If children are taught how to think rationally and scientifically, then "religionists" will have a more difficult time indoctrinating them into their irrational religions. It's so simple.
Wiggy at 12:26AM on Oct 16th 2007
84. The Methodist minister that baptised and confirmed me was a liberal on Vietnam and social issues. But he was more pragmatic when it came to issues and faith and how they relate to science.
He pointed out that Chapter 1 of Genensis matched up reasonable well with Darwin's theory of evolution, as opposed to Chapter 2, which he called a myth.
Now, here's where it gets interesting. My minister felt that God was controlling evolution. Even though we have to view God's work as perfect, He doesn't.
Evolution is God's way of making prototypes and test runs before committing to a final product.
Now, was my minister able to prove that God was behind evolution? Of course not. That's why he believed that his theory was meant for Sunday School, sermons from the pulpit, and college religion and philosophy clasees, but not for the public elementary and high schools.
Kent at 12:27AM on Oct 16th 2007
85. 1. It's not about being "terrified" of evolution. It's simply a matter of looking at the case for both evolution and creation and deciding to come down on the side of a willful, intelligent designer, creating the universe as opposed to the incredibly preposterous notion that life somehow randomly came into being and organized itself, somehow moving upward in the evolutionary chain, all through natural selection operating on random mutations, all without the benefit of any real direction over millions and millions of years. Please. It's pure wishful thinking. And you may say "where did God come from?". I say where did matter and energy come from? Were they eternally pre-existent?
2. Again, if one believes that evolution has occurred and is occurring, one could also conclude that certain people groups in the world are inferior to others. In fact, this has happened on a number of occasions where researchers have identified various tribes, in placed like South America, as sub-human, in-spite of much tap-dancing by evolutionists regarding so-called "social Darwinism".
Dave at 12:30AM on Oct 16th 2007
86. Oh, and one other thing: That Hitler used Darwin's writings and evolutionary thoughts as a basis for his "master race" thesis is a demonstrable, historical fact. You don't have to be a "cretin" to figure that one out. All it takes is a little intellectual honesty.
Dave at 12:35AM on Oct 16th 2007
87. "I'm an anarchocapitalist, Kent. Looks like your idea is shot down in flames."
What in the world is an anarchocapitalist? If you believe in anarchy and capitalism, those are two ideas that are wholly incompatible.
Anarchy is simply total chaos. Capitalism requires the existance of a government to work properly, although it works better with a limited government. Without a government, you can't have a court system to enforce contracts
If you believe in anarchy, then you can't have the idea of a corporation or structured markets, such as the NYSE or the CBOT.
Kent at 12:40AM on Oct 16th 2007
88. Dave,
It is about being terrified of evolution. After all: if you complain about evolution being "incredibly preposterous notion that life somehow randomly came into being and organized itself, somehow moving upward in the evolutionary chain, all through natural selection operating on random mutations, all without the benefit of any real direction over millions and millions of years", how much more silly is it to believe the designer just "randomly came into being and organized itself,... all without the benefit of any real direction"
Hmmmmm?
Got an answer?
Or are you going to rely on the old standby: hypocrisy.
And please: stop making the idiotic mistake of confusing evolution with social darwinism. Also: stop lying and saying that Hitler used Darwin's writings.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:51AM on Oct 16th 2007
89. Kent,
Anarchy is not the same as chaos. For instance, New Orleans after Katrina was chaos, but there wasn't anarchy, right? I mean, there was the New Orleans city gov't, Louisiana state government, US federal government....
Also, anarchy and capitalism go together well. In fact, capitalism only properly works with anarchy. Further, only an idiot believes that governments are necessary for courts to exist. There's absolutely no logical connection whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:54AM on Oct 16th 2007
90. Folks... Allow me to sum up what Dinesh is doing in a simple sentance:
He is selling a book.
That's it. He wrote this, a publisher put ink on pulped wood, and now he has to try and drum up enough attention and "contraversy" to convince people to buy it. Of course it's filled with strawmen, erronious misinterpretations, gross generalizations, and otherwise poor rhetoric. That's because he's trying to sell it to the congregation... not to the atheists outside the church who have better things to do.
What's funny is how he is so utterly fixated on evolution that he fails to acknowledge that christianity has been crying foul to science for centuries; long before Darwin came around. Astronomers were executed, then centured for daring to contradict the church's claim of the Earth remaining central in the universe. Or how 'alchemists' were executed for witchcraft and sorcery. Even after the schism christians continued to pooh pooh science. They questioned the sanity of Newton. Invisible forces indeed! There was only one invisible force in the universe and that was God! Or plate technonics. Arguing that africa and south america line up is a fluke. God put petrified bones into the ground to mess with humans... unless they were the bones of leviathans killed during the great flood.
Christianity has clashed with science on almost every front possible. Evolution wasn't anything new, and Darwin being a christian understood the can of worms he was opening. But the greatest virtue of science... something that religion can only dream of attaining... is the ability to be questioned and empirically verified. Scientific theories are the most refined understanding of science to date. Had Newton come to his understandings two centuries later it would have been the 'theory of gravity' ... as it is actually known amoung physists.
No. The real crux of intelligent design isn't the 'holes' in evolution, but an attempt to get public schools to teach a religious idea as verified scientific fact. An effort to shove intelligent design on to the same stage as physics, biology, chemisty, and astronomy and say 'See! Our theory is just like theirs.' At what point then will we see 'Intelligent alchemy. 2 H2+ 02 = 2 H2O because god wants it. Or intelligent astronomy?
Christians who are incapable of understanding that their 'infalible text' is scientifically impossible have no choice but to try to force these efforts. They can not compromise. They can't bring themselves to do as countless christians have: pick and choose truth and virtue from a collection of dross. The idea that one part of the bible as flawed is intolerable. Never mind that I can, with pen and white out, have quite a bit of fun with the ten commandments. To allow doubt, to force thought and consideration to the words of god, is terrifying because it makes salvation difficult. Who wants to think about the will of God or Jesus' real intentions when your only source material is in question? Ironically this would seem to be the point of christianity to me. Blind adherance isn't virtue. It's sloth. And to couple contempt and intolerance on those who reject the message, or who interpret it other than literally, is pride. Two very deadly sins that are too often overlooked.
Oh the irony... Milton would take them to task for it.
Somber at 12:57AM on Oct 16th 2007