Philosopher Daniel Dennett wants to force all parents, even parents who home-school their offspring, to give up their children to educators like himself. For what purpose? To expose the children, Dennett argues, to "uncontroversial" facts about the world's religions. Listen to Dennett make his case in a short segment from our recent debate in Boston, and then you can hear my answer to him.
In his book on religion, Dennett writes, "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?" Dennett insists that "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."
During our debate, Dennett asked me what part of his proposal I disagreed with. Well, I agree with him that one of the purposes of education is to expose young people to facts and ideas that they do not get at home. But I disagree with Dennett's presumption that parents are typically the indoctrinators while educators are always the liberators. Notice how derisively and condescendingly he talks about religion. His derision is entirely unsubstantiated by facts. He mocks the Vatican and wonders if it will one day become a museum, and he wonders if Mecca is headed for repossession as "Disney's Magic Kingdom of Allah." Sure enough, a good part of the audience is moved to snickers and laughter. This is bigotry posing as intellectual sophistication. Dennett has taught the undergraduates well: chuckle at anyone who takes religion seriously and this is how you will be considered an enlightened, mature person.
We should turn Dennett's questions on him and apply them to professors: "How much do we regard children as being the property of their teachers? Should secular educators be free to impose their anti-religious beliefs on young people? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? Universities don't literally own undergraduates 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."
For legislators, alumni and parents, probably the best way to hold universities accountable is through financial leverage. The way I do it is to take on self-satisfied pedants like Dennett and expose them, in front of their own students, as intellectual emperors without clothes. Watch the Dennett debate and you will see how the snickers and applause of the skeptics eventually gives way to a sullen silence. These students are desperately in need of an alternative to the strident secularism of Dennett and his colleagues. True liberation for young people means freedom not only from the ignorant fundamentalism that Dennett rails about, but also freedom from the secular fundamentalism that he and many others in the academy sadly embody.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Teaching as a Form of Indoctrination
Posted Dec 13th 2007 7:23AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Islam, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- fanman on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Botts on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Melinda Henneberger and David Corn on Hardball: Rudy Refraining, Steele's Fees
- First Family Heads to Hawaii on Thursday
- Afghans in Iowa React to Obama's Afghanistan Surge
- Michele Bachmann's Farm Received Over $250,000 in Federal Subsidies
- Rand Paul Leads in Bid for Kentucky GOP Senate Nomination
- Obama Rebuts 'Grumbling' from African-American Supporters
- Democrat Parker Griffith Is Switching to Republican Party
Reader Comments ( Page 34 of 35)
496. I sort of feel like L.Ron Hubbard either creating a new religion or having it ghost written by a new writer.
JefFlyingV at 9:31AM on Dec 15th 2007
497. pboy-reply to 885,
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
-----------------------------------------------
Pboy, This scripiture is clearly directed at un-believers, When they knew God, means having knowledge of God, or having learned of God.
So when people learned of God they glorified him not as God, neither was thankful; But became vain in their imaginations,and their foolishn heart was darkened.
Atheist don't glorify God as God, they glorify science- evolution as being responsible for the answers to life thru evolution.
Vain in their imaginations. How? By considering that life from non-life could be possible or a bang could take place were their is no matter or zero substance.
By what law regulates the systematic universe?
Or even the law of time it self.
To imagine that all the laws, that control our universe could become perfectly in tune without a Tuner is, you guessed it quite an Imagination.
----------------
Professing themselves to be wise they become fools.
That is evident in the comments of atheist. Wise in the skill of educated degrees, but foolish because of their disbelief in God.
The scripture you listed clearly pertain to un-believers.
Observant at 9:31AM on Dec 15th 2007
498. pboy, that was a reply to 485 sorry.
Observant at 9:33AM on Dec 15th 2007
499. 494. Brian, it is what your are trying to do. IT is what Dawkins is trying to do. VARIATION may explain why ones mothers instincts may want to nurture more than another but it doesn't explain mutation of that gene.
------------------
You mean I have to explain basic evoliution to you?
A population has variety. Now, the environment changes (for example) and some members of the population happen to be able to survive in the new environment than the rest, have more children that survive to breed, eventually more and more of the population is adapted to the environment.
Let's say in the galapagos, some islands have low growing vegetation, some higher off the ground. There were tortoises on all the islands, originally the same or very similar type. So after a LOT of time, on the islands with the low vegetation, the tortoises have developed really long necks and a peak in the front of their shell so they can reach the higher vegetation. On the islands with the low vegetation, the tortoises have normal necks.
Now let's take this gene for loving thy neighbor. We developed as social animans, so over time the real asocial ones of us died off more frequently than the social ones, since they didn't get the advantage of having the group helping them survive. Within the social group, it's natural that they need to look out for each other, since this is the advantage of living in large social groups. So those with more of the gene did better, those with less were the social outcasts, and had fewer children. As time went by we became more and more social, and this process never stopped; we're still evolving in this and many other ways.
I can lay it out for you, but I can't understand it for you.
Brian at 10:15AM on Dec 15th 2007
500. 494. Brian, it is what your are trying to do. IT is what Dawkins is trying to do. VARIATION may explain why ones mothers instincts may want to nurture more than another but it doesn't explain mutation of that gene. Hence your explanation is wrong. In another post you talk about ego. Maybe a little less will help you understand Darwin.
Have a good night.
pd at 11:05PM on Dec 14th 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Maybe a little less ego on your part and you'd understand reality rather needing it all to be simple, like a children's story. It's the christian EGO that lets them think that they CAN refute science, with no formal training required, just faith, faith, faith... And then you go on to look like a complete sped when you do.
Brian at 10:21AM on Dec 15th 2007
501. The scripture you listed clearly pertain to un-believers.
Observant at 9:31AM on Dec 15th 2007
------------------------------------
So then it is easily possible to find verses in the bible that supports unbelievers. Why would that be? Why are they in there? I wonder...
Unless they're there to warn you believers against having too much PRIDE. BUt you don't listen to it, do you? Lolololol.... Always know best, doncha? Never wrong. Must be nice to be infallible, like your god.
Brian at 10:25AM on Dec 15th 2007
502. Atheist don't glorify God as God, they glorify science- evolution as being responsible for the answers to life thru evolution.
_______________
Atheists do not glorify period. Science does not need glorification. Anyone with a scientific mind is accutely aware that new evidence can disprove current theories. This is how science develops and moves forward. Religion on the other hand survives only through glorification of the unseen. It stands still because evidence to the contrary will never be approached with an objective mind. Religion looks down on critical evaluation. It does not ask for rebuttal. It is comfortable with the status quo and progression is never a goal.
Religion depends on glorification for its survival. Science needs only nature and objective minds, capabale of critical thought, to survive.
Religion is a desperate attempt to find purpose outside the realm of reality.
emma at 11:08AM on Dec 15th 2007
503. Reply to emma,
Science does not need glorification.
-----------------------------
Science is however esteemed and regarded by atheist ,as the only creidable source of authentic
data as to the begianing of all life form.
Scientifc theorys and data, on subjet matters concerning evolution,are glorified and praised by the VOICE of atheist on these bloggs. The word glorify means to praise or admire. You would be lying to deny your rantings.
Religion, depends on people of faith to continue.
God however, is worthy of glory and praise.
Atheism, is mans quest to abolish the moral dictate of God, for the purpose of living your lives without moral restraints.
For example, Abortion, homosexuality,adultrey forincation,idolatry just to name a few.
We believe the Bible to be comlpete, and the revealed plain of God, from begining to end.
Atheist, on the other hand write their books as they go.
Observant at 12:57PM on Dec 15th 2007
504. How would an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent creator not know that a foolish human would be talked into partaking of knowledge at the instigation of the vile lucifer? The creator must have been in the lavatory or grabbing a snooze? Or was the creator setting in motion future events that he wanted to take place and play out over a couple of thousand years. Was the grand design all a misunderstanding? Hey you new kids on the block go ahead and hijack the torah, because I'm the new loving god.
JefFlyingV at 2:42PM on Dec 15th 2007
505. brian...497
Between the two of us ... which one 'knows' GOD?
Type 'know GOD' into your searchbar... not one sight will say that we all know God.
That line from Romans, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful;", clearly refers to people who 'know' GOD.
You can twist it all you want... You can call me a fool because I say in my heart that there is no GOD....
... but, by my definition of 'atheist'... I don't know GOD... you might... but I know that there are no gods at all.
Doublethinking like that is sure a win/win situation for you... too bad it doesn't make any sense, brian.
pboyfloyd at 4:22PM on Dec 15th 2007
506. I said ..'..not one sight.."... LOL.. I meant to say "...not one SITE.."... my fingers can't spell.
pboyfloyd at 4:24PM on Dec 15th 2007
507. Pboy,
Do you KNOW what 2x2=
To know is knowledge.
You can squirm all you want, but the fact is you know of God, You have knowledge of God, You have been taught of God ,You have learned of GOD, But because of your unbelief YOU are not Known of GOD.
It is not double minded as you suggest.
It is another case of denial from an atheist.
Observant at 4:46PM on Dec 15th 2007
508. Well, Observant, this is what I know of GOD.
HE, is not really a HE in the 'sense' that HE is male... only in the sense the HE has authority.
Seems that HE gave men authority, and men 'returned'
the favour, by calling HIM a HE.
So 'HE', is the imaginary Creator and Designer.. who made the Universe out of nothing... so HE is a MAGICIAN.
According to Christians 'HE' is everywhere at all times, always ready to pass judgement on prayers by suspending, or bending the natural course of things to the benefit of those who pray, (magic)... or not.
Some Christians claim that we cannot know GOD or the WILL of GOD or GOD'S PLAN... while some(the guy who wrote that Roman's thingy, for example) say that at least some can know HIM...
... while even others, you and brian, for example, think that anyone who knows the stories 'know' GOD.
Some Christians believe that GOD is 'goodness' personified... GOD is all-good... and has magically created a giant torture-chamber called HELL.
Some believe that GOD also created angels who rebelled against HIM, and constantly(or occasionally) try to tempt humans towards evil.
I know that your GOD is imaginary, angels and demons are imaginary, there is no spiritual realm/supernatural realm. There is no real magic... (as DENA pointed out... there is only leger-de-main and illusion.)
I know that there is no 'coming back from the dead'... sure some people have been in a 'near-death' state and been brought back to consciousness... so what?
You can accuse me of 'squirming' or being in denial.... or (like DD) you can accuse me of being a GOD-hater...
... but I know that your GOD, like all the other gods, angels and demons, is IMAGINARY!
Do I know the stories of GOD, the all-good, who drowned out the entire planet, who instigated genocide, who set out draconian laws and punishments, who believes that slavery is fine etc.
But with you and brian's doublethink mentality, you'd be quite happy to say that I didn't know GOD when it suits you and to say that I DID know GOD when THAT suits you, isn't that right, Observant?
I do know that GOD and all the other gods are imaginary!
pboyfloyd at 6:24PM on Dec 15th 2007
509. "“...WHEN THEY KNEW GOD...” (Romans 1:21). Every man and woman at some point in life “knew God”. The Greek word for “knew” here means “to be aware of” or “to perceive.” Thus, we have all perceived God’s presence at some point in our life."
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/salvation_webpages/02-when_they_knew_god.htm
Both you and brian seem to be indulging in a bit more doublethink here according to the statement above and DENA's having 'experienced' GOD.
Can you just change 'to know GOD' to mean 'to have knowledge of GOD' when it is convenient for you.
I think that I could dig up a quote from the DD's past blogs from someone else who said that knowing GOD was like/if not actually a physical sensation...like a 'wind'...
... oh, yea... that was YOU!(you old doublethinker)
and 2 X 2 = 11(base 3)
pboyfloyd at 7:02PM on Dec 15th 2007
510. Pboy,
No double thinking going on here.
The point I am trying to make is this, You know God, by way of what you have read and heard, even though you did not believe the information.
But you dont know God on a personal level, in the maner In which I know him. Do you understand the difference?
You know me by the name I use on this blog.
But personally you do not know me.
Same as in Romans 1:21 The knew God, but not in the manner in which God makes him self known to people who repent of sin and believe, In a personal experience.
Observant at 8:08PM on Dec 15th 2007