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 9 of 12)
121. Zagros,
People do believe in god because they fear the consequences. What do you think the modern use of Pascal's Wager is all about?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:13AM on Oct 16th 2007
122. Go read your bible! There was no bible when Christ was here. This book is all mankinds doing and you must know how we can screw things up. Worshipping the bible is no differrent from worshipping the koran or the torah or any other religions sacred writings. True religion of any kind is based on action and most of you sacred book worshippers are killing each other supposedly because you are followinmg your sacred books.
Rick at 9:38AM on Oct 16th 2007
123. "Furthermore, why is it that scientists point at Darwin and say you either believe in evolution or you believe in God. The two are not exclusive of each other. You can believe in a supreme being and still believe in Evolution."
-nice comment Tammy.
this article is doing exactly what it claims religion to be doing: trying to convince people to believe in atheism. We get it, you believe what you want to believe based off of not having any real proof one way or the other. What disregards the theory of GOD catalyzing evolution? Who says that any mind is being incarcerated with religious or antireligious persuasions when kids are free to their own thoughts until the day they die? Who are you to claim one way or the other? And until any human being can duplicate the creation of life from nothing (which is impossible because there is no reverting back to nothing -- if that was the case, no human being or scientific phenomenon for that matter would exist to be able to create that spark). Essentially, just believe in what you want to believe in, but do not shoot down other peoples beliefs with your "how tos" in education and the rearing of one's owwn children. It is quite obvious to me however that GOD is real and is the precursor and catalyst to all science. Departing words: GOD bless you all.
Vijay at 10:12AM on Oct 16th 2007
124. one more thing, for all the non-believers out there, maybe GOD put out all this evidence (or lack there of) against HIM as a test of faith. We human beings cannot prove this otherwise (or even true for that matter). However, what harm what it do in accepting that theory, simply that HE exists and nothing else -- that we must lives our lives to be good to ourselves, and more importantly, to others. As for the religious fanatics out there fighting amongst each other on who is correct, I know that you all agree to one testament: GOD is real. Everything else is just trivial details in comparison to the notion that GOD exists. so stop the crying, whining, converting, and fighting and just kneel on both knees in submission to our true LORD and SAVIOR - GOD. As for the atheists, I truly believe that the TRUTH (GOD=TRUTH) will be revealed to you all,and if everyone lives a life of good, then there is a spot in heaven for you -- atheist or not.
Vijay at 10:41AM on Oct 16th 2007
125. Wiggy (81),
"All kids are atheists (they don't have any belief in god) until they are indoctrinated by their parents"
All kids are vegitarians and nudists until their parents do something about it. Ok nudists is a bad example, but we can see that we are biologically driven to eat meat, we've got the tools for it. I've seen vegetarian women get pregnant and start devouring hamburgers. It's very 'natural' to eat meat. Likewise studies (if it isn't obvious) suggest we are hardwired to believe in God. It's part of being human.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=a43cfb7b24423cc6&ex=1330664400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You can deny yourself, and your children that, because you are so evolved that you can reason, but it's actually unnatural.
Now is an atheist vegetarian really missing out?
bigTuna at 10:44AM on Oct 16th 2007
126. Vijay, that's the dumbest ad hoc rationalization of utter nonsense I've ever heard.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:43AM on Oct 16th 2007
127. There was no need for a bible to be written until the message of Jesus Christ spread beyond Greek speaking lands...What made the people decide that Jesus was the Son of God? Jesus Christ said,"This generation seeks a sign, but none shall be given it, except Him! Jesus Christ death and resurrection is all we get folks! Either you believe or you don't believe! I brought my children up in faith...I have twin daughters and a son...my daughters graduated last year, and my son is a junior this year...the girls attended public schools until their Sophmore years, and my son attended public school until his 8th grade year...It has proven to be a good decision to do that...Faith is a large part of their life, and it has given them something solid to lean back on in life...education can open up doors for a career and financial foundation, but it CANNOT give them what they get from having faith
Bridget at 10:54AM on Oct 16th 2007
128. "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."
If you have anarchy, then who defends you if another country decides to invade?
Who will say that a 100,000 sq. ft. manufacturing plant or a 50-story office building should not be built next to your 3 bedroom, 2 bath colonial?
Even Ayn Rand, the heroine of the modern conservative movement, believed that government was necessary, albeit a very limited government that respected individual freedoms.
Kent at 11:02AM on Oct 16th 2007
129. Perhaps some grist for the mill...
Are good and bad things done because religion demanded it, was religion used as justification for doing those things, or was it a rallying point for the followers? Can the lack of a religious justification or rallying point allow us to link those deeds to atheism?
Won't argue that (lack of) religious upbringing has some impact. Personal take is that there are some wonderful and some horrible people in the world and in history. Some of them are religious, some are not, and some use religion. I am most afraid of the last kind.
I don't have an extensive understanding of Eastern religions and cannot include or exclude them from an observation that Middle-East-based religions have all had bloody periods where the non-believers were subject to death. How much of this was true religious belief and how much was a power-grab disguided as a religious mission?
alan at 11:31AM on Oct 16th 2007
130. In his blogs D'Souza has said that evolution and religion can be consistent. This is of course obvious and is consistent in his acceptance of both evolution and religion
It does not follow that evolution is consistent with all religions or all interpretations of Christianity
I disagree with the people D'Souza calls 'atheists' and 'defenders of Darwinism' who are against religion and believe that religion should not be taught until a child has reached the age of reason
My first reason for disagreement is the invasion of privacy. Even if religion distorts the mind of the child, to bar teaching of religion in the home would be a dangerous precedent. Certainly some things should be and are unlawful (e.g. involving one's child in pornography) but that is only reasonable and has no application to religion
It remains true that a literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with the idea of evolution and assumed by many Christians to be inconsistent with the idea of evolution. This includes many non-fundamentalist Christians. Additionally, there are many conservative preachers who teach that evolution is wrong -- in light of the scripture. Some of these people believe that 'Intelligent Design' should be taught as an alternate 'theory.' Others believe that evolution should not be taught
It is my opinion, and I believe that it is not a mere opinion, that a non-literal and liberal interpretation of Christianity has much to offer. I further believe that the present age is not an age of religion -- I state that as a fact but not as something that should or should not be the case. A consequence of this fact and of the fact that most religious people adhere to their belief system seems to be that the world, today, is not open to another, new, religion
However, I believe that there is a place for a new religion. Why? First, science -- especially physical science and cosmology -- is incomplete; modern physics and cosmology recognize their own limits -- the Planck length, the size of this cosmological system and so on. Thus according to science we do not know what is beyond the edge of science -- if anything. But the history of science suggests that there is something beyond the edge and certainly the researches put in to science indicates that scientists hope and believe that there is something beyond the edge. What do most scientists see beyond the edge? They see something that is rather like a continuation of present science and cosmology; they do not see anything like most religious cosmologies. It is this line of thinking, I imagine, that makes many scientists such as Steven Weinberg atheists. Undoubtedly, the problems with literal religion and the abuses of religion contribute to the beliefs of such scientists. My own background is in mathematics, science, and engineering. I sympathize but do not agree with the scientists such as Steven Weinberg when it comes to religion and the ultimate nature of things. What is beyond the edge of modern science? It is reasonable to think that the next fundamental discoveries will be a continuation of present science. However, there will be some surprises -- else the discoveries would not be fundamental; think of the radical changes in thinking introduced by relativity and quantum mechanics (and, of course, evolution.) In the long term, though, e.g. the science of 4000 AD what might we expect? There is no reason to think that it will all be more of the same. That is the factual reason for my thinking that there is a place for religion. The 'human' side of this thinking is that science, in its modern form, does not address a number of real human concerns that religion does address -- and these include the concern with what lies beyond the edge of empirical knowledge. While many scientists think that what lies beyond the edge is 'more of the same' I have shown why there is no real reason to think this. This concern is addressed in the religious cosmologies. However, the religious cosmologies, except perhaps Buddhism and the abstract parts of Hinduism, appear to generally be very much off the mark -- unless peppered with a dose of liberal interpretation. Christians may note that this concern need not touch the spiritual value of Christ. Thus, there is indeed, in my opinion, a place for a new kind of religious thinking that would learn from the established religions, from science and, perhaps from other sources
Would such a new religion be at all literal in its extra-scientific cosmology? We have seen that there is likely to be an extra-scientific cosmology -- which simply means that today's cosmology is incomplete and it does not mean that the 'final' cosmology will / will not be 'scientific.' Well, there are two ways to be literal. One is to say precisely what there is beyond the edges of the empirical -- there would be no way to assess the truth of any such cosmology. 'But we have the Bible' you may respond. I say that those who believe in the Biblical cosmology quote revelation but are ultimately on their own; they have to justify that what is said to be revealed was in fact revealed and was revealed correctly. The second way to generate an 'extra-empirical' cosmology is to talk of what is possible. This would be a mythology but much can be done with story telling. Actually, it is possible to go beyond story telling. I will not tell you here where it is possible to go but if you are interested you may visit my web site http:/www.horizons-2000.org. The site is large and the writing may be difficult. I have been developing the ideas and have not yet had the time to write a 'plain English' version -- but plan to do so. Anyway, I have not developed a 'new religion' and do not plan to do so but my thought, as written on my site, shows that there is the real possibility and potential for a 'new religion.' I hope that this should not be interpreted to say that I envisage a new system of 'belief' that will require adherence by faith alone. Although I argue that faith is important as a complement to our limited reason, I have shown that it is possible to develop the contours of a post-empirical cosmology that does not require faith
Where does that leave us with regard to the topic of D'Souza's blog?
I believe that the 'atheists' as D'Souza calls them, and moderate academics, have a point when they are concerned that our youth are not getting a good education and that our set of attitudes toward religion is one factor that is involved. However, it is not the only factor; I suspect that entertainment, politics, and the economics of consumerism and advertisement also contribute. I also think that they go overboard in their advocacy of what we can and cannot teach our children. Although D'Souza presents himself as rational and as an adherent, not of fundamentalism, but of the core Christian system and, although there is value in Christianity, I believe that the core Christian cosmology -- genesis and the eschatology -- have serious problems. What's more, in setting himself up as the champion of Christianity and opposed to the 'atheists' and in saying that 'all the mass murders of the world are due to atheism' D'Souza sets him self up in the same camp as those he opposes -- the camp of extremism
I believe that the 'atheists' -- Dawkins, Dennett and so on -- do us a disservice when they overreact. However, the core reaction is valid. The fundamentalists and the D'Souza's, intentionally or not, make the world a place that is, if not hostile, less welcoming to truth
It may be an attractive camp to be in -- extremism. It may set you up to be and to be seen as a champion of something. And, I would be mistaken if I were to say that there is no role for the roles of 'champion' and 'defender'
But most of life is not like that. The extremism and extremist debate goes on. And their debate lends a slant to the way we see things that is a distortion of the way things are. Meanwhile there are all kinds of real works to do -- work that lies outside the high pitch of the extremists and the counter-extremists... and outside of the 'work' what else? To live our lives without the fears of the extreme -- to enjoy the moment at times -- the world has its dangers -- we don't need invented ones
Anil Mitra at 11:44AM on Oct 16th 2007
131. Kent,
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf
And as for the manufacturing plant next to the home--that's up to the property owner.
As to governments: they are the antithesis of liberty. Since they are based upon the initiation of force, they do not respect the rights of others.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:03PM on Oct 16th 2007
132. I want to add a comment to my recent post:
There is a problem with intelligent design. Unlike the theory of evolution, ‘intelligent design’ is not even a theory—it provides no explanation for it shifts the burden of explanation from ‘endogenous genesis’ one step back to an external but unexplained creator. Thus, the theory of evolution explains origins in terms that are simpler than what is explained—the simplest terms available—while ID ‘explains’ origins in terms of something of unknown form and unexplained origins. Thus to promote ID as an alternate ‘theory’ is a distortion and, if truth is important and untruth dangerous, then it is a dangerous distortion. The ID backers and others sometimes refer to the theory of evolution as a ‘mere’ theory. While the theory of evolution has not explained everything about life, e.g. the origins of chemical replicators, it is much more than ‘mere’ and there are definite answers to the standard objections such as the fossil record and the problem of the origin of complexity that the ID promoters such as Duane Gish PhD systematically ignore
Anil Mitra at 12:19PM on Oct 16th 2007
133. D'Souza: "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."
Gosh I must check back with atheist central control to get the low down on this new policy I'm supposed to be following.
GordonHide at 12:48PM on Oct 16th 2007
134. Well i definately agree with free thinking, and people having their own beliefs. That is why i am a Bahai, i want to unify everyone under different banners of thought and religion. Even if your not religious you must believe that the idea of love, compassion, and putting other peoples well being above your own, are beautiful ideas. So yeah, screw people that want to enforce their beliefs on them, or the enforcement of the lack of beliefs in the sake of atheism. So yeah, how about we just all get along?
Logan at 3:58PM on Oct 16th 2007
135. Atheists like to say, and often smugly, that the existance of God cannot be proven. As if that is, therefore and somehow, proof that God doesn't exist. It doesn't prove anything. They can no better prove that God doesn't exist than anyone can prove that God does. Choosing to believe in God or not is a subjective, personal choice. It is some thing that their God, science, may never be able to prove one way or another. Science is hardly the last word on truth and reality. Logic and rational are not reliable. They are variable, based on what you accept as the truth or not in the first place. If you believe the earth is flat and there's an edge out there to fall off of (which any scientist in Europe 500 years ago would have agreed to as the absolute and irrefutable truth) it is logical and rational to fear sailing to far to the west. If you believe, however, that the earth is round and there's no edge out there to fall off of, then the fear of sailing too far to the west is neither logical nor rational and might seem rather stupid. It makes you wonder what science has got wrong now.
Atheists seem desparate to convince people that God doesn't exist to legitamize their own unproven and largely unsupportable position. Why be so adamant? They're obviously not sure they're right about God. They would like to be able to shove their attitude down the throats of children. The same thing they complain of religions doing.
They want to educate the upcoming generations that God doesn't exist and to "despise" the beliefs of their parents. Sounds like something Nazis or Communists would do. What do think the Hitler Youth, League of German Girls or Communist youth groups were for? To indoctrinate youth with what the Communists or Nazis want them to believe. Atheists would no sooner allow people, including children, the right to decide for themselves what to believe in. They would indoctrinate youth in atheism. We, also, have Boy and Girl Scouts, but, in this society, people are still afforded the right to choose their beliefs for themselves. Atheists wouldn't allow that. They could do that now and they aren't.
Philip Marsh at 11:32AM on Oct 19th 2007