DJ: “But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?”
PZ: “Why should they have that right? I mean, we’ve got a social contract right? And what we are trying to do is raise lots and lots of people who are going to be functioning members of our society. And it’s in, in my personal self-interest that the children of evangelical Christians grow up to be productive members of society. Now, it’s not my interest to say they have to abandon their faith or anything like that. But if their faith is such that it’s obstructing their ability to contribute to science and technology, engineering and all these good things in our society then yeah, we have an interest in saying, ‘No, you shouldn’t be doing that.’”
Note what is not said here. There is no reference to the need for the literacy of students in history, civics, philosophy, critical thinking, literature, logic, or any of the facets of education that would bring about a fully functional citizen.
Here is what is said, and it is honestly blatant. Science, technology, engineering each trump a parent's RIGHT to teach their own children. The Atheist's right to control the education of the nation is the only right. The elitism is dripping from the jowls of the annointed. They, the elite, know better than anyone else in all things, and all things are science.
Earlier in the interview, PZ conflates science and Atheism. For him there is no difference. He has not given the slightest thought to the logical ramifications of Materialism, nor will he. He is riding high on the crest of waves that he himself creates. The bigger the wave, the higher is PZ's celebrity. PZ is not likely, therefore, to suddenly adopt tolerance. Tolerance would go directly against his wave making and personal gratification. So PZ and intolerance go hand in hand.
For those arguing that Atheism is not totalitarian, they must now either refute or ignore what PZ - and Dawkins in the same vein - have declared concerning their own rights to control the lives of others. It will be hard to refute; these two have made clear their self-elitism and presumed extraordinary rights conveyed thereby. They are consummate totalitarians.
8 comments:
Stan, I will cross-post this to my own blog, simply because my reply is so long and expresses my views rather forcefully.
Basically, I find this post to be so overblown that it would be laughable if it wasn't so obvious that you are deeply offended by the whole thing. I don't see that PZ is saying that parents don't have the right to instruct their kids. Let's look at the original question and note the qualifier in bold:
“But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?”
In other words, do parents have the right to not have their child-raising choices contradicted at a university (professors, after all, don't work in the public schools)?
Clearly, no, they don't have that right.
Further, is PZ trying to impose his will on these families, or simply expressing his disapproval? Again, let's go to the source:
".. we have an interest in saying, ‘No, you shouldn’t be doing that.’”
Are you saying that PZ and like-minded folks don't have the right to object? Expressing disapproval does not constitute a fundamental limitation of anyone's civil liberties, but depriving atheists of free speech at a university setting certainly does, Stan. Surely you can see that your post could be interpreted as advocating the latter?
You also write:
So PZ and intolerance go hand in hand.
Strange. I post on PZ's blog and have been singled out as an outstanding poster. I make no bones about being an (imperfect) Christian. I've met PZ personally. I've had lunch with him. We've had beers together. We don't agree on some topics, but we tolerate each other pretty well. How do you explain that? Can't you distinguish between your beliefs (of whose acceptance you are not entitled) and the civil liberty of religious conscience? I can, and from where I sit, while PZ clearly rejects my beliefs in unflattering terms, I don't actually see him attempting to tell me what I must believe or in other ways taking liberties. What evidence can you produce to support the latter claim?
Scott, you seem to me to be so enamored of PZ that you do not read what is obvious. PZ claims a social contract that gives him rights that trump the rights of parents. He is talking about Atheo-biology. It is one topic to him. He says so. Scott, fer cryin' out loud, he claims the responsibility - a contractual interest - to tell parents what to do. It's right there, his words. I don't have to make this stuff up.
BTW, aren't state universities public institutions? And why is it not possible to teach what is actually known, rather than what is believed?
Scott, I think you are in denial on this issue. PZ has called for the termination of students who disagree with him. He calls for the assault on polls that he doesn't like. He has rejoiced in the death of priests, and fantasized about killing them all. He cheerfully quotes French Revolution Modernist mantras such as "strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest". Do you not read his blog? I don't know PZ as a person; if he is different as a person, so be it. But as a celebrity Atheist blogger, he is beyond offensive (which is his express intent ... "get over it" he says). He is a hate monger, and in that vein he is INtloerant. His statements are inflammatory and his fans are easily inflamed.
It is interesting that you cannot or will not see that.
Stan --
As usual, you edit what was really said to fit your world view. The interviewer asked PZ:
But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?”
which you edited to
...PZ claims a social contract that gives him rights that trump the rights of parent...
The second part of the question is what PZ is responding to -- he is not infringing on the rights of parents, he is protecting his own right to teach information he can back up with scientific research. If that information conflicts with the bigoted views of parents, so be it. You appear to be the one in favor of censorship -- PZ has advocated no such thing.
Distortions, straw men and arguments from ignorance remain your modus operandi in this post. And your response to Scott's comments is merely an ad hominem attack on him, as is most of your comment on PZ, indicating the truly weak ground you stand on.
And yes, state universities are public institutions. And in the sciences they teach what is demonstrably provable, not conclusion based constructs of a biased viewpoint. And you have no evidence to the contrary that I have seen.
This seems to be a demonstration of the old adage that one has infinite tolerance for one's own prejudices, and none for those of others. I suspect that there is considerable sympathy for PZ's intolerance of, say, creationists or YEC's or whatever. But that requires reading something into the statement by PZ that is not there. The statement refers to beliefs; not facts, beliefs.
I maintain that PZ's job is not to propagate beliefs, but to present factual accounts of actual known, proven, verifiable and reverifiable results of the scientific process. Beliefs should fall where they may in wake of such presentation. But that's not what PZ said.
As for editing the statement, actually I was responding to the entire, unedited statement. Here is PZ's position, as is easily gleaned from the interview statements:
(1)There is 100% conjunction between atheism and science.
(2)"But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?”
“Why should they have that right? I mean, we’ve got a social contract right? ... etc, etc.
Does PZ have the right to teach beliefs as science?
This is the issue with evo-bio, it is legally declared and taught as fact. And given PZ's vantage and influence points, as well as his declared Atheism-is-science-is-Atheism convictions, it will likely be taught as Atheist-science dogma if he is allowed. PZ is evangelical in his atheo-evo, and virulent against non-atheo-evo's. At least as he is known by his blogging.
But from the viewpoint of a similar and sympathetic bias, no doubt PZ's radicalization is thought to be normal, tolerant even. I do not share PZ's belief that his job is to control beliefs. If he is not content with facts alone, then he is a religious advocate.
So I stand by my statement: "...PZ claims a social contract that gives him rights that trump the rights of parent..." I didn't edit, I commented on the overarching meaning; surely you know the difference. If it doesn't suit your worldview, I can't help that.
If you'd care to point out the fallacies you claim I made, rather than the blanket indictment you made, I will discuss them. The blanket indictment without supporting details is a fallacy itself, of course. Few accusers ever take me up on this challenge, because there is rarely any meat to the blanket charge. But if I committed an error of logic, I will be happy to have it shown to me, and I will then correct it. Otherwise, adios.
Stan --
You seem to be rather confused about how this whole blogging/comment thing works -- if you simply re-blog in response to comments, it reveals that you are in an insupportable argumentative loop.
As I pointed out:
...in the sciences they teach what is demonstrably provable, not conclusion based constructs of a biased viewpoint. And you have no evidence to the contrary that I have seen.
You cannot refute this, so you side-step and meander. You do not address the unfairness of your ad hominem attacks, or the fact your are using a partial quote from a biased editing of a longer interview.
Your only response is to try to shift the burden of proof onto me. An act of desperation of course.
...Here is PZ's position, as is easily gleaned from the interview statements:
(1)There is 100% conjunction between atheism and science.
(2)"But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?”
If you drew this conclusion, you have a major problem with reading comprehension. What is a 100% conjunction? -- PZ didn't say this. And nowhere does PZ assert that parents don't have a right. I will repeat, in repetition of Scott Hatfield, that PZ asserts he also has a right -- an equal right -- to teach the facts in response to unfounded belief.
I suppose you think a medical school showed avoid contradicting the false beliefs of doctors in training.
...But if I committed an error of logic, I will be happy to have it shown to me, and I will then correct it...
Your errors in logic are legion Stan, and you never correct them. So adios me, because it is your blog, but you leave in defeat.
I leave it to the readers to judge for themselves, after actually reading what is posted at AiD. I suggest to you that one must actually read a thing before one judges anothers comprehension of it. You apparently have not read it.
100% conjunction? That means that there is no difference to PZ... again read the whole thing, OK? And you edited my statement, too. My,my,my.
I guess your blanket, unsupported accusations are the best you can do, so we are done here.
[also posted on Scott Hatfield's blog]
But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?
When I listened to the DJ/PZ interview, I found the premise of this question troubling. Of course parents have a "right to teach their children what they believe to be true", but at some point (ie at least by university age), it is time for young people to be exposed to and challenged by alternate viewpoints. That is one of the things that post-secondary education is supposed to be for. If the set of beliefs that the parents have passed on to their children is not up to such a challenge, then either the premise is incorrect, or the kids have not been taught proper skills of critical thinking and discourse.
I agree 100% about the need for a strong basis for any belief system, and definitely the need for critical thinking.
The same argument can be made for entertaining YEC in a pre-science or philosophy of science class where critical thinking is taught to those who have not received it. But the atheo-science types claim that students are too impressionable or immature to receive any training beyond their own atheo-science.
But critical thinking about values is not what PZ is about; he values derision, ridicule, and those are generally the tactics of a bully.
Now that I think of it so is vandalism, another hallmark of PZ. He sends his vandals out to destroy on-line polls (not much loss there, but it's vandalism just the same), and to steal sacramental objects, which he then vandalizes.
These are the values that PZ projects, along with the self-annointed saviorship of the world of atheo-science.
I do not defend YEC's. They are wrong and many are very obstinant and obnoxious. But PZ is in a position to do much more harm than any of them. Teaching value systems as science is wrong and I will continue to speak out against it. Atheism is not a scientific principle.
Post a Comment