An attempt to rankle emotions.

Keipernicus pretty well has this one down cold in this Youtube rebuttal to this article by Ed West for the UK Telegraph. Video and more below the fold.

Hilariously, Ed West actually subscribes to the same Genetic “Fallacy” that Dawkins espouses, which people like Zdenny have denied in the past — and I say “fallacy” in scare quotes because it is only so called a fallacy because that lends to creationists’ arguments against it. In other words, it’s another example of creationists taking a successful tactic (pointing out actual logical fallacies that are so prevalent they’re named), and twisting it to meet their ends (naming a successful argument a fallacy despite it not having any property a logical fallacy might have).

The Genetic “Fallacy” is that people are generally brought up to believe what their parents believe, because what you teach a child during their formative years sticks with them most of the time. If you teach a child that Yahweh exists from a very young age, they will believe that Yahweh exists, and will likely believe in such most of their lives. If you teach a child that the Upanishads are the ultimate doctrine for living your life and are never to be questioned, they will likely never question them. If you teach a child that assertions should be questioned and answers should be weighed for their relevance and evidence, they will probably become atheists later in life. This is self-evident.

Unless, that is, something happens to also cause them to question their earlier indoctrination; after which, they will go through a wrenching period of introspection and will either come out re-forged in their original beliefs or they will shift worldviews entirely to something that makes more sense to them. This could be another religion, this could be atheism, or it could be some self-smelted amalgam of beliefs. And all of these ways of coming to a thought process are valid, but they in no way disprove the memetic passing of beliefs from parent to child.

The fact is, people like Ed West are annoyed by the atheist “surge”, and in an attempt to shake the worldviews of the less ardent rationalists, he’s trying to rankle emotions, to force people into the position of questioning their earlier indoctrination. While some atheists are atheists not because they’ve fully examined the evidence but because they were brought up that way, a huge majority of us were brought up in a religion first. Those of us that came to the wrenching realization that their earlier indoctrination was completely meritless and came to rationality on our own are unlikely to have our emotions rankled in this manner.

There’s a chance people like West will peel off the weak atheists, people who don’t believe in a god or gods but have never really given them much thought, or otherwise people who were never exposed to religions and may be open to the concept. But the likelihood of him getting under Dawkins’ skin by stating that one grandmother had 1400 Christian descendants? Pretty damned low.

Comments

  1. says

    West is definitely an asshat. He’s also a Catholic asshat, if that gives you any further insight into his agenda.

    I mentioned his little rant in one of my own. I particularly take issue with where he says “…criticising people for their privately-held religious beliefs shows a lack of class and maturity, and besides which this sudden outpouring of bile against Christianity seems clearly motivated by a secret fear of another Abrahamic religion.

    How many times must we go over this before it sinks in through the thick skulls of the zealots. If their religious beliefs were actually privately held like they keep saying, none of these discussions would be taking place. West then goes off and tries to say the we atheists are clearly motivated by a secret fear of of either Jews or Muslims. I’m wondering what the hell he’s been smoking to come up with garbage like that.

  2. says

    I second your recommendation of your own post. Sadly, I’m late to the party again. This is one of those posts that’s been left in my drafts queue for a few days, and it was getting a bit… un-timely.

    A money quote from your post:

    If the “privately-held religious beliefs” were actually held privately, and not foisted upon the rest of us on a daily basis through proselytizing and attempts at legislation (among other methods) we wouldn’t be having this fucking discussion!

    You said as much in your comment here, Dan, but I like this phrasing better. Maybe it’ll even penetrate some skulls!

  3. says

    Thanks once again, my friend. I’ve had a few posts in queue as well. Posted one tonight that really wasn’t finished in my mind, but it’s finished enough. I’m just tired.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>