Brown has picked Stein over Dawkins'. Yeah, I know. Big surprise.
Not only will I have to mark him wrong on the answer, but he wrote all these wild-eyed comments on the back of the test for which I will have to take away additional points. In my class, that's a big no no.
In one of these remarks, he makes the following statement:
There absolutely is good reason to suggest that raising a child Catholic (or of any other faith) can produce lasting negative consequences:Well, let's not be hasty here and conclude that a comment like this is not exactly evidence of a great deal of rational activity going on among critics of religion. Maybe we should first investigate exactly what he means here. Let's just put what I think he is saying in its baldest form:
1. You are indoctrinating them into a belief system that after thousands of years still cannot be defended rationally. By indoctrinating them early on, one impedes their later ability to think honestly about the validity of the beliefs. [emphasis added]
Religious belief cannot be defended rationally.Now what does he mean? Does he mean that in the last couple of thousands of years, there has never been a rational case made for religious belief? That, of course, is a historical claim that is demonstrably false. There have been plenty of arguments made for religious belief, and arguments, in case he didn't notice, are rational procedures. And then there is the fact that if the have been defended rationally, then, of course, they can be defended rationally.
Does he mean that the arguments made in favor of religious belief are not valid? Not a single, solitary one of them? There has never been an argument made in favor of religion over the last 2,000 years in which the conclusion followed as a valid deductive inference from the premises?
Maybe he would care to enlighten us on exactly what he means here. That might help dispel the impression that what we have on our hands here is more hyperbole from the Darwinists.