by Bangalore 28 Replies latest jw friends
tec, Dawkins published it in a book of his.
I still say that the last bit of his letter is great advice to all, why on earth should we believe people who make claims for things with no evidence ?
Is it important for us to believe these flights of fancy ? if so why ?
And for those of us who have a rational mind and critical thinking skills, how are you going to enable us to believe, without evidence ?
Psacramento
Your letter is the kind that helps a girl's life. A little girl is dependent on her father's unconditional love, his attention and admiration, displays of affection, etc. to form her opinions, trust, and relationships with men the rest of her life. Every man she ever meets and loves is, I believe, measured against that first all important relationship with her father. If that is damaged, dysfunctional, or destructive to her ego and self esteem, she will have trust and abandonment issues the rest of her life, sometimes even in spite of later therapy. I understand it is a terribly difficult thing to overcome and I have some experience myself in that regard. The love and acceptance of your father is absolutely essential to a girl's development.
Your words are too kind grandmajones :)
They speak the truth, I have seen first hand the damage done by fathers that don't care enough for their daughters.
My father told me that every woman in our lives is a mother, sister and daughter and that they should be treated as we treat and want our mothers, sisters and daughters to be treated - Love, respect, compassion.
Richard doesn't say anything bad per say, far from it, it is just that he is trying to make a statement VS religion when a 10 year old child couldn't care less and all they want to hear is how m uch daddy loves them and is proud of them, no matter what.
I h ope he was just trying to make a point and that is real relationship with his daughter is a loving and daring one, regardless of the path she chooses.
His letter pretty much ignores the possibility of faith based belief - that would be due to the fact he does not have faith in such things himself. Faith in anything supernatural is beyond science to prove/disprove so to turn around and ask the question "show me the evidence" for "everything" is a failure to recognize that Faith in God, Faith in life after death or Faith in any kind of supernatural life etc, is beyond science and may not have direct physical evidence.
Nothing in the universe is "beyond science," therefore everything in the universe must have some scientific evidence for it. If no scientific evidence can exist for something, then it is beyond our universe and completely irrelevant to our lives.
Personally if I am going to write a letter to my daughter when she is 10, I think that of all the htings I would writer about or give advice to her about, critical thinking would not be high in the list,
I like and respect you, PSac, but please don't procreate if you don't plan to teach your kid critical thinking as one of the most important skills she will ever obtain. There are enough morons in the world already.
The things you list to tell your daughter are things a good father communicates with his children in personon a regular daily basis and therefore would have no need to preserve for posterity in a formally written document. I hope if you do have children that you will both tell them the things you mention in your post AND teach them critical thinking skills. Those skills will serve her/him well and work both ways.
Here's my experience with the Dawkins letter: I printed out this letter and read it together with my daughter at age 10. She's smart but got bored well before halfway through it. So I paraphrased and just discussed the points with her. It is a very good and relatively simple treatise on the subject of credulity and critical thinking but seems to have been written more for the book it was published in than for an actual child.
As for the ad hominem attacks on Dawkins by his religious opponents I wish I could say I'm surprised but I've come to expect such behavior of Christians unfortunately.
I like and respect you, PSac, but please don't procreate if you don't plan to teach your kid critical thinking as one of the most important skills she will ever obtain. There are enough morons in the world already.
The things you list to tell your daughter are things a good father communicates with his children in personon a regular daily basis and therefore would have no need to preserve for posterity in a formally written document. I hope if you do have children that you will both tell them the things you mention in your post AND teach them critical thinking skills. Those skills will serve her/him well and work both ways.
I like you too, that is why I won't take what you said personally.
I have two beautiful and happy little girls, 7 and 3 and Sofia, my eldest is excellent at science and math ( she is in grade two) AND she is also a loving and helpful, caring child.
I guess on BOTH sides of the equation I am doing ok :)
As for the ad hominem attacks on Dawkins by his religious opponents I wish I could say I'm surprised but I've come to expect such behavior of Christians unfortunately.
Yes, you are right about that, it was very "atheistic" of us.
;)
Nothing in the universe is beyond science.
I suspect you will find it difficult to prove that scientifically. Prove to me via science that God does or does not exist? It cannot be done - this is a matter of faith. Also your statement highlights the great lack of humility within the science community in general.
I also need to pick up on a point you directed at PSacramento.
Please do'nt procreate if you do'nt plan to teach your kid critical thinking.
Critical thinking makes me question evolution and atheistic world views.
This is a 2 way street - critical thinking works in both directions, it is not merely critical thinking if someone questions God, spirituality or creation.
The Scotsman
science can't prove thought or consience.
I think that this is a fine letter. I almost get the impression that people are reacting to this letter as if it is the only communication that ever occurred between Dawnkins and his daughter. Not all letters to children are to say, "Daddy loves you", and not all dads say, "Daddy loves you" in the same way.
Dawkins truly believes that religion is harmful; why wouldn't he take the time to teach his daughter to watch out for things that he feels are harmful?
But Tammy's point is well taken: why publish a letter to one's own daughter? Was it truly written for her? If it was, I suspect that we wouldn't be discussing it at all.
Interesting, in any case.
I think Richard was just trying to make a point of how personal he takes this, like I mentioned above.
I assume and I hope that he and his daughter do have a loving relationship.
Richard seems like a very nice guy, witty and charming when he is not "persecuting" religious people ;)
Sure we got on his ass here, perhaps more than we shoudl have, but Richard gives as good as he gets.
