Right on, Lawrence Krauss.
His other point, that teaching creationism is willful child abuse, I’d agree with too, but I’d broaden it: failing to give your child a full opportunity to explore the world of the mind is child abuse.
« A story
“The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it”
« A story
Can we extend that even further? Failing to give every child a full opportunity to explore is child abuse. Leaving it to chance is not how we usher in a welcome new generation.
Reality is such a bully! It just won’t allow people to choose their own truths!
It’s funny that the same people who complain about how a world without God is one which worships “relativism” are the same people who complain about science contradicting their religious beliefs. “Faith” is based on the idea that truth is tribal. Different tribes, different truths. If you’re a liberal person of faith then all truths are okay. If you’re a conservative person of faith then one tribe is the only tribe that has the right attitude to begin with.
Creationists mean well. They don’t think they’re harming their kids. So what? Doesn’t matter.
One of the best ways to close down a child’s mind is to indoctrinate them with the idea that religion automatically exempts beliefs from having to do any real work or compete with different and better conclusions. If you mean well — then you’re moral.
Sastra: “Reality is such a bully! It just won’t allow people to choose their own truths!”
I am definitely stealing that.
“Intent – it’s fucking magic.”
The title of this post is a fantastic quote. I’m going to use it.
“failing to give your child a full opportunity to explore the world of the mind is child abuse.”
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!
Sorry – normally a lurker but feeling a bit raw about this at the moment – one of my students has just been removed by her family to be married.
At 17.
Reason – she was becoming too independent and was not being appropriately respectful of her heritage and culture.
There are times when I just despair.
“Reason – she was becoming too independent and was not being appropriately respectful of her heritage and culture.”
Sorry for got to add ****** religion as well.
Aargh!!!
I’m sorry to go OT – just needed to vent.
Well said, Lawrence Krauss. Thanks for pointing it out , PZ.
#6
Her parent’s left it as late as 17?
An Arab religious leader was married a girl of 6 and consumated the marriage at 9. That’s the way to keep the girls under control!
eclipsse
What is her culture?
Muslim.
We thought her family were moderate when she joined the course (tertiary science) – but things have been getting more and more difficult for her – she was doing really, really well – got accepted for 3 universities through UCAS…that may have been the problem
She was ‘collected’ from college this morning by her brother, and the rest of the group say that her phone is going to voicemail and all of them have been unfriended on FB this afternoon.
Her course manager is in pieces. Nothing we can do, apparently
Lawrence Krauss stated it so concisely and to the point, especially regarding the children, that all left to do is: applause!
@ alainbagain
Thanks for adding to my list of reasons to despise religious leaders – I think that makes … oh several thousand.
I wish I could just go and get blind, stinking drunk, but I can’t – so I am simply going to go and find somewhere and cry, instead.
@ eclipsse, as a nurse of over two decades, I’ve also seen horrible situations because of religion. Cry your eyes out–it’ll help. I’ll shed a tear for her also so you’re not alone.
It’s only my personal experience, but I don’t like that. We were called to an apartment where a three year old boy was black and blue from head to foot. Black eyes, broken nose, broken jaw, ribs, arm, feet and toes, internal injuries. I think I would have rather that he had been taught he earth was only six thousand years old and that Jesus is real.
eclipsse
Thanks for the reply. Can you get the social services involved (seeing that she’s still a minor)? It may not help either, but I think it’ll be good for her to know that people haven’t forgotten about her.
falstaff
There is more than form of abuse and they don’t exclude each other. As a matter of fact, fundamentalism often leads to physical abuse as well. Read alanbagain‘s comment to see how. And eclipsse‘s story isn’t that far off.
Religion denies science even though it is nothing more than a highly effective process that is used for understanding reality. No matter how good religion makes one feel even the deluded should be able to see through the ruse. Why do they not?
The last time I heard anything from Lawrence Krauss, he was creepily defending his wealthy friend, a registered sex offender: http://skepchick.org/2011/04/lawrence-krauss-defends-a-sex-offender-embarrasses-scientists-everywhere/
Unless he subsequently walked that back, I’m not about to listen to anything he has to say on the subject of child abuse.
April 2011 is “last time”? And the last time I read something by Watson (as recommended here) a few days ago, she also wrote a similarly smearing, manipulative and appeal to emotion driven article, that time apparently going after Shermer. I’m glad I don’t identify as skeptic. At least “recently” Watson and Shermer rather contribute nonsense, so let them stab each other. I’m only concerned about the persian rug. After this happy congregation of real Ad Hominems, let’s agree that this all has nothing to do with what Krauss says in the video.
Are you sure that you aren’t a Skeptic, owlglass? You sure do have the knee-jerk defensiveness regarding Dear Leaders that is characteristic of True Skeptics.
I did “counter” an ad hominem with another ad hominem, pointed out the trick, and noted that it doesn’t take away what is said in the video. No worries, I get used to script wanking. I side with the “Discordianist Stray Cat Anti-Theist Organisation” (FNORD), the n+1 camp in any given debate. Every member can vote the leader. I’m that member.
Owlglass, I assert with confidence that you are an idiot. Here are the three most recent articles that I can find by Rebecca Watson …
http://skepchick.org/2013/02/your-laugh-o-the-day-ineedmasculismbecause/
http://skepchick.org/2013/02/watch-the-revisionaries-free-online-now/
http://skepchick.org/2013/02/dragoncon-the-pedophile-and-the-false-dilemma/
… and not a mention of Mr Shermer in any one of them!
Is the problem now that he and his Associate Egos are not getting enough attention? Could you aim for truth? Or consistency? Or something? Or even tell us precisely what you are talking about?
The last one recommended here was in the article “Woman is a dirty word” (Feb. 04). It would be entirely possible that another one came afterwards, since I don’t read everything, but even by that standard, it seems about right. I don’t care about Shermer as I don’t care about Watson, and what I said is about right. I was cought by Internet Backdraft, where I learned that there are apparently a lot of conflicts and “issues”, and having educated myself in the last weeks or so, I found that my own views do not align with the trenches. But it’s quite entertaining, for a number of reasons. :)
Owlglass, never allow your ignorance about a given subject stop you from making a pronouncement on that subject.
Hmm…sounds like a theist or a liberturd….
Owlglass, I don’t know what weird cult you were brought up in but it was clearly one in which it was forbidden to speak the name of god.
Except that Michael Shermer is not god – I’m pretty sure he would acknowledge that – and the business of comparing one set of ideas or observations with another set has been going on for centuries. It is how knowledge advances.
Except that you don’t seem to believe in knowledge, not when you are prepared after making any number of ex cathedra pronouncements on events to finally admit that you had no idea what’s been going on.
A good enough working definition of idiot. No?
I fully embrace it … :)
See, I notice my stupidity coming through right now! I can’t understand what you are trying to say. But I can give you one perspective on how I think knowledge advances. About 2500 years before American Gladiators, a debate style named after a famous philosopher was envisioned: the socratic method. It was an eliminative, dialectical discussion where people adopt different stances and pitted them against each other. In the ensuing carnage a new understanding emerged.
One technique is about tentatively agreeing to the opponents’ views or methods, and then leading them over the cliff and ad absurdum. So, when it is valid to bring up an article by Watson that somehow allegedly discredits what Krauss’ says in the video (Ad Hominem I), then it would be valid to bring up another article that undermines Watson’s article by discrediting her (Ad Hominem II), where you are back, anyway, that Ad Hominem in this fashion would not work. It is not about Krauss (or Watson), it is about what it was said in the video. It could have been read aloud by the MS Windows computer voice. Hence it is not a “Dear Leader” issue (where your own –uhm, unique– thinking comes through because the same can be applied to Watson or Shermer, for that matter).
Finally admit!? Maureen, on which universe are you on? You asked me, and I explained it. For my part, I just notice that I encounter people all the time who carry a ton of assumptions and then drop them on the first occasion and are then somehow convinced they won something. In reality, I don’t mind personally, but many others in my place quite certainly turned on their heels and head the other direction. For me it is kind of fun. I like comic relief.
If, as we are led to believe, the Socratic Method is a means of gradually refining the points of difference and eliminating dross, then how come Ms Watson and Mr Shermer suddenly appear in your @19 during a discussion of Professor Lawrence Krauss? Or is your need for a cheap shot every few hours so great that it outranks three millennia of the greatest philosophers?
Besides, I prefer to use later developments of the dialectic as exemplified by, for instance, William of Ockham and later Hegel.
There is also a proverb, probably predating Socrates, about not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.
Post 18 (not me) introduced Watson… rest was explained to you, twice. And don’t be too butthurt that I wrote something negative about her and Shermer. I don’t know what else they have worth reading/seeing, but the latest I’ve seen was rather weak. Have a good day Maureen. ;)
Sorry to be “that guy” but I can’t verify his “50% of Americans don’t know that the Earth goes around the sun and takes a year to do so” statistic. I found this –http://sciencedude.blog.ocregister.com/files/2008/06/garyscixls.pdf
which states that in 2006, only 55% of Americans knew it takes a year to orbit the sun, but at least 76% know that the Earth goes around the sun.I suppose he was referring to only 55% of people knowing both of these facts.
I just wanted to clarify that it isn’t that half the county doesn’t know that the Earth orbits the sun. Though this survey still makes me want to move to Canada.
Sorry to nitpick, but inexact statistics tend to spread everywhere and someone has yet to invent a bad stat Lysol.