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
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson 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
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
- Federal Panel Says Bailouts Worked, Problems Remain
- Dodd Falls Below 40 Percent Mark in Match-Ups Against GOP Contenders
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Public Rates the Economy Over Health Reform as Top Issue by More than 2-to-1
- Obama Gets Support on Afghanistan, but Not Health Care Reform
- College Senior Embarks on a Dream: Peace-Building in Rwanda
- Obama Approval Rating Slips in Another Poll, as Does Support for Health Reform
Reader Comments ( Page 35 of 35)
511. No, Observant...
... it is YOU that is doublethinking that there are two ways to 'know' GOD and that the passage in Romans is refering to people who have knowledge of GOD... while the person on that link I put up obviously considers that knowing God is 'being aware of God' and/or 'perceiving God'.
Are you now implying that the Roman's writer meant that 'when they knew God', he meant 'when they had knowledge of God'.... and he meant 'when they percieved God', he meant, 'when they percieved knowledge of God'.... and 'when they were aware of God', he meant, 'when they were aware of knowledge of God'...
... given that that other site states that the greek word used...'knew' meant 'perceived' or 'was aware of'...
You and I have knowledge of Santa... but we cannot be said to percieve Santa(as real) or to be aware of Santa(as real) ...
... the people that the Roman's passage are refering to knew/were aware of/percieved GOD as real... yet were not thankful ... and became vain etc.
... they were NOT atheists... atheists would be people who do NOT know/percieve or are aware of God(as real)...
Samson ...spent his time at parties, with people who did not know God.(Read Judges 14:10, 17.)
John knew that attitudes like this(pride, vanity) could enter the church. It was a completely selfish, greedy and proud way of life. It was a danger to *believers as well as to *unbelievers. 'Do not love the world', is John's appeal. (Read 1 John 2:16.)
pboyfloyd at 9:04PM on Dec 15th 2007
512. If we didn't know about god then we would not be going to hell. It is people like Rita, Dena and Observant telling us about him that is condemning us to hell. Thanks so much Observant.
a born atheist at 9:12PM on Dec 15th 2007
513. Pboy,
Aware means > having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge.
-------------
Perceive means > to attain awarness or understanding.
--------------
In Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
To keep the text in contex, it is clear that he is speaking concerning men who hold the truth in unrighteous. Men who are unbelievers are depicted as the unrighteous. A righteous man, wouldn't even consider such a reproach.
------------------------------------
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Manifest means > 1. perceived by the senes and especiall by the sight.
2. Easily understood or recognized by the mind.
What is known of God? Answer- His creation and he has shown it unto man thru nature.
-------------------------------------------
Romans 1:20 For the invisble things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
What are the invisible things of him from the creation of the world that are clearly seen. Answer- His wisdom that govern the laws of nature.
They are understood by the things that are made.
-----------------------------------------------
All men are without excuse because of the knowledge that is evident in the creation.
Romans 2:14-15 For the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
-----------------------------------
This knowledge of God is a manifested witness to all mankind thru nature it self.
These men knew, that God is the creator of creation, and would not glorify him as God. Neither were they thankful for his creation, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
They professed themselves to be wise, they become fools. The Bible asserts the unbelievers to be fools in heart.
----------------------------
A person who has come to know God, in the personal sense would not become a fool, nor would their heart be darkened.
It is still evident to me, that these men knew God thru the knowledge of nature and word.
Observant at 2:34AM on Dec 16th 2007
514. Well, Observant...
Seems to me that neither you nor the Bible can prove that nature is God's creation by saying, "Voila... look around you, here it is!"
Looking at a mountain or listening to a babbling brook does not 'speak' to me of GOD. The mountain is a big rock and the brook is running water.
Nature is not the nurturing thing that God-lovers would have us believe. No matter how 'awesome' mountains are... they are inhospitable... as are deserts, jungle, tundra and even temperate forests.
Even the city is for the most part inhospitable to the homeless... man's inhumanity towards man.
Supposing you were a man of means with a wife and some brats... and like JOB everything went in the tiolet... divorce, bad settlement... followed by sudden job loss...
... suddenly you'd see my POV... no security... no 'wonderful' creation... just cruel/unfeeling nature.
At the time of Paul who wrote Romans(?), I'm guessing life was short and brutal. To imagine the majority of people as well read...or even literate is as bad as Dorothy Sayers imagining that people of the Tudor times were somehow more rational than modern folk.
I can't imagine anyone at the time of Paul not being, by necessity, superstitious and 'theistic'... imagining that some god or other held their fate in their hands.
For you to project this forward to our time is an anachronism... prideful, God-hating, back-biters were against Yahweh..or Jesus.. this is doubtful.
That they should know of Yahweh or Jesus by seeing the world is to imagine that there were not perhaps a hundred Gods that they might attribute nature to.
pboyfloyd at 3:05AM on Dec 16th 2007
515. So what's the big hype about this? My family went down to the doctors and we all got indoctrinated against the latest diseases and they even gaves a couple of lollipops to boot. You see, there's nothing to be afraid. Now get there and be good and get yourselves indoctrinated before someone sick and it's all your fault. By the way did mention the lollipops?
Timo at 4:11AM on Dec 17th 2007
516. We're living in an age where the libs educators can't even teach our children how to read yet their expected to teach things like sex education. What a joke!
Amanda at 12:00AM on Dec 18th 2007
517. Re DL Sayers and Medieval Times
To pboyfloyd - I doubt Ms. Sayers was (in her essay "Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning") was ENDORSING the whole Medieval world.
Some medieval scholars were BETTER at teaching their students how to THINK RATIONALLY that many in education today.
Such BLANKET endorsement of Medieval Times would have meant SHE (a woman tho with a BRILLIANT mind) would NOT have been allowed to translate Dante, write plays, give great speeches such as "Are Women Human? - the best SHORT essay on womens' rights around - and ALSO to write the still popular Lord Peter Wimsey detective stories.Just about everything she wrote is STILL in print...
Who would endorse ALL of our culture because - women have somewhat MORE access to the halls of learning?
We are (in differing ways) as SAVAGE as any Medieval person. Here I speak of world culture today where young WOMEN and GIRLS (sometimes boys) are captured and sold into slavery WORLDWIDE as just ONE of the mass evils which many ignore.
Probably another great potential brilliant DL SAYERS scholar has been killed & murdered somewhere in this BRUTAL process and we all have lost...
DNA - a great design at 8:14AM on Dec 17th 2007
518. FREE LOLLIPOPS IF YOU GET INDOCTRINATED!!!!
Timo at 8:22PM on Dec 17th 2007
519. ED DO YOU CATER? NOPE WILBUR I DON'T, BUT IF YOU WANT SEX THEN I'M TELLING YOU A HORSE IS HORSE OFCOURSE OFCOURSE UNLESS YOUR HORSE OFCOURSE IS GIVING HEAD............
Timo at 1:10AM on Dec 19th 2007
520. All Dennett is saying is that all other religions should be also brought to the children's attention. I think that this'll show children that ALL religions are full of BS that can't be proven. People of religion will be scared that the kids will be 'enlightened' to what they REALLY are!!
KM at 1:42PM on Dec 27th 2007