In popular parlance, “child abuser” is just about the worst thing you can call anyone. So you can imagine my shock when I read the latest comments on one of my own recent threads and found one commenter accusing another of child abuse – a charge he repeated in the Moderation thread. My astonishment grew when I read of a proposal in Moderation to ban child abusers from The Skeptical Zone, on the grounds that people who post porn are already banned, and child abuse is much, much worse.
And what was the alleged offense? Here it is: “admitting to using strawman arguments, fallacious reasoning, and false claims to destroy childrens’ ability to think rationally about certain scientific topics. That’s child abuse.” Except that the person accused made no such admission. Regardless of whether the arguments were fallacious or not, no deceit was involved. It was the accuser who attacked the arguments as fallacious and illogical, not the person he accused.
And what were the arguments about? In a nutshell, abiogenesis. The arguments were presented to a group of six-year-old children and their parents, in an attempt to make them see that the origin of life from non-living matter is astronomically improbable, that macroevolution (e.g. fish to bird) is also vanishingly improbable, and that Intelligent Design is the only rational inference. A detailed description of the presentation can be found here.
I’d like to make a couple of very brief points. First, the term “child abuse” can be defined in three ways. First, could be defined very broadly to mean behavior which actually causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children. Second, it could be defined more narrowly to mean behavior which is intended to cause severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children. Third, it could be defined as behavior which the vast majority of responsible people, at the present time, would agree causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children.
The first definition is clearly ridiculous, as it would make all of our parents or grandparents child abusers. Think of passive smoking. Or think of spanking: fifty years ago, it was quite common for naughty children to get their little bottoms hit with a belt and sent to bed without supper. The second definition is also unsatisfactory, as it would exonerate parents who refused to take their dying child to a doctor, but took her to a quack faith healer instead: here, the parents didn’t mean to harm their child, but any sensible person would say that they should have known better. That leaves us with the third definition.
So the question that concerns us is: does teaching a child a fallacious argument – assuming that it was fallacious – designed to prove that abiogenesis is well-nigh impossible constitute behavior which the vast majority of responsible would agree causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to a child? The response to that question should be bleeding obvious: you’ve got to be kidding me. Clearly the person making the ridiculous accusation needs to grow up.
I’d also point out that the person in question actually not only accused a TSZ commenter of child abuse, but also accused him of admitting to it:
Mung,
You seem very, very, upset that I am pointing out that [name redacted]’s real life behavior constitutes child abuse. A good example of him admitting to this is in the thread starting here.
I have to say that’s libelous. The accused person merely admitted to using certain arguments to persuade children. He made no admission of committing child abuse. As I showed above, the only reasonable definition of child abuse is: behavior which the vast majority of responsible people, at the present time, would agree causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children. The accused person did not admit to engaging in such behavior; on the contrary, he emphatically denied it.
I think a retraction is in order. And I might add: the accuser is very lucky that the person he accused belongs to a religion that enjoins its followers to “forgive other people when they sin against you” (Matthew 6:14), turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:40) and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). Very lucky indeed.
And how fallacious were the arguments, anyway? I’ll let readers judge. There was an everyday observation that “dead dogs stay dead dogs,” used to support the conclusion that “life does not come from non-life except by a miracle.” Pasteurization was also cited as evidence against abiogenesis. My response: those are valid points. They don’t demonstrate abiogenesis to be impossible, but the person accused was not trying to establish that. The argument he was making was a rhetorical one, not a rigorously deductive one which you might expect to hear in a college classroom.
There was another argument to the effect that fish don’t evolve into birds because fish give birth to fish. A little simplistic, perhaps, but it’s certainly strong prima facie evidence against macroevolution. Fortunately for evolutionists, there is good fossil evidence for the evolution of fish into tetrapods, some of which later evolved into birds. Scientists therefore have good reason to believe that it happened, but they still can’t demonstrate a mechanism for how it happened, and they still don’t know why it happened. What they have instead are some promising hypotheses which (unfortunately) have not yet been quantified in order to establish that the transition could have taken place over the timescale involved. And I hardly think most parents would consider it “child abuse” to omit to mention the existence of Archaeopteryx in a presentation aimed at six-year-olds, especially when there is an ongoing debate over that fossil’s place in evolution: some scientists argue that it was neither a bird nor an ancestor of modern birds (or even a close relative of that ancestor).
Third, there was an argument relating to a large cup of coins, in which the presenter asked the children to guess whether they would all turn up heads when shaken (answer: “NO.”) The accuser objected that it would have been fairer to ask a child to put all the coins that came up tails back in her cup and shake it again, and repeat the process again and again. But in this case, it it the accuser’s understanding of evolution which is faulty: it is a process that lacks foresight, so it cannot select for a distant, long-term result. Score a point to the presenter.
Fourth, the presenter showed the children videos of Rube Goldberg machines made by man, and then showed them videos of living things, telling the children that they are Rube Goldberg machines, too. That’s arguably true, as far as it goes. Consider the following sentence, taken from a textbook titled, Cell and Molecular Biology: Concepts and Experiments by Gerald Karp (John Wiley and Sons, Sixth edition, 2009): “Cellular activities are often analogous to this ‘Rube Goldberg’ machine, in which one event automatically triggers the next event in a reaction sequence” (p. 7). There are also scholarly papers discussing how such biological Rube Goldberg machines might have evolved – but once again, without any quantification of the degree of difficulty or the time that would have been involved. Is it “child abuse” to neglect to mention these plausible but speculative papers to a class of six-year-olds? No: it’s what lawyers call advocacy.
Finally, the presenter invoked Pascal’s Wager, when giving talks to college students (not six-year-olds):
I then teach them Pascal’s wager and point out, they have less to lose by being wrong about ID and God’s creation than their Christ-hating professors, therefore it’s worth stepping out in a little faith if that’s what they want to do.
I suggest that if they worry the professors are right, I suggest they ask them these sorts of questions. When they see their professors can’t answer, they often say, “then why do they teach evolution is true, they have no proof.” My point exactly.
The accuser’s sharp retort to this exposition was: “I suspect you neglect to mention the god that gets very annoyed with people who try to game it.”
Look. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and I’m quite familiar with the many objections that have been leveled against Pascal’s wager. But I’m also well aware that the “many gods” objection which the accuser cites (alluding to the “professor’s god“) is far from decisive, and continues to be the subject of vigorous debate. [Defenders of the argument point out, for instance, that since Pascal’s God is an absolutely perfect being, Pascal’s hypothesis is simpler and hence more probable than the highly ad hoc hypothesis of a professor’s god.] And I might add that since college students are not children, there can be no question of “child abuse” in this context. These students are perfectly capable of Googling “Pascal’s wager,” as I just did.
After having examined the arguments, I can find none that constitutes “child abuse” on any reasonable definition of the term. The accuser whom I mentioned also accused the presenter of “attempting to indoctrinate children.” However, the term “indoctrinate” is a highly loaded word. Attempting to persuade children of the truth of a certain worldview, using arguments that a scholarly pedant might take exception to, cannot be fairly described as “indoctrination,” whatever one might happen to think of the arguments themselves.
To sum up: I find the accused not guilty. And I would hope that the majority of readers would agree with my verdict, which is nothing more and nothing less than a victory for common sense.
Before I conclude this post, I’d like to comment on the suggestion made by one commenter that child abusers be banned from TSZ. As we’ve seen, the term “child abuse” has been variously defined by people on this Website, so before such a rule is proposed, we need to agree on which definition of “child abuse” we’re talking about. Now, the notion of clear and present danger is well-established in American constitutional law. If you’re going to actually ban someone from a site encouraging the free discussion of ideas, then I would suggest that your reason for doing so should be a compelling one. If, on the other hand, the suggestion is simply that contributors with a criminal history of child abuse be banned from TSZ, then that sounds much more reasonable. As for the banning of porn: irrespective of how much harm someone may think it does, the practical rationale for banning it should be obvious. Most people think it’s an annoying nuisance. The same goes for spam.
I shall lay down my pen here, and invite readers to contribute their thoughts. I’ve said my piece.
(Image at the top courtesy of all-free-download.com and BSGStudio.)
Did you arrive at your belief because of the EV of Christianity? Wouldn’t it be wise for an religion to exaggerate the reward and risk in order to boost its EV? TV preachers could use promise for only a small donation to show belief donation wealth in this life and eternal rewards in the next.
So you don’t see them engaging in such intellectually dishonest thought processes.
And that’s a problem, how?
Glen Davidson
P(god exists) = pretty much 1.0
P(god exists AND hell exists) = P(a triangle has four angles)
The issue for YEC is more subtle. For many believers, if YEC is true, then YEC is a sufficient but not necessary condition for Christianity being true.
Symbolically one might lay it out something like this:
P(Christianity True) = P(YEC true) + P(YEC false but Christ still rose from the Dead)
Thus, a non-zero P(YEC true) would imply a non-zero P(Christianity true).
Hence:
P(Chrsitianity true) * Reward (Christianity true) = infinity
vs.
P(Atheism true) * Reward (Atheism true ) = P(Atheism true) * 0 = 0
So establishing P(YEC true) is non-zero is a sufficient but not necessary condition for demonstrating the superiority of EV in YEC over atheism.
Hence, it pays to keep tallying anomalies favorable to YEC, even though as VJ correctly says, a large amount of evidence is against YEC at this time (but not necessarily in the future).
A smaller issue relates to junk DNA, as Dan Graur said, “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.”
stcordova,
Factor in the cost of believing falsehoods that force you to deny reality and live in constant fear of screwing up an inexistent eternal life
Where is the factor for the risk of belief in false god? Wouldn’t the most prudent answer to the wager is belief in all gods?
Yes, seek and your search will continue to lead you away from chemical and biological evolutionism as you will find more and more incontrovertible evidence for Intelligent Design. 😎
Where is the risk factor for remaining an ignorant buffoon babbling mindlessly about risk factors instead of considering reasonable inferences?
Glen Davidson
Old, but still good. Nothing in your link refutes the basic problem.
That’s probably because the atheists you know are too honest to pretend to believe in something they don’t out of fear of the thing they don’t believe exists.
You must think your god is really stupid.
The question I’m interested in here is, “by what standard can we determine whether laws are just or unjust?”. And since laws are binding on all, the standard must also be recognizable as authoritative for all. Theists and non-theists can have different metaphysical positions about how best to explain why human beings have the capacities that they do.
The human capabilities I’m interested in here are grounded in an idea of human nature as developed by philosophers and social scientists (see the capability approach for more details). But of course anyone is open to criticizing them, on the basis of evidence and argument.
I introduced the word “responsibility” here to focus on moral agency, since that’s what we’re talking about. One could use the word “responsibility” in a loose sense (“the faulty fuse is responsible for the fire”) but I’m interested in distinguishing between moral agency and other kinds of causation.
Well, “top-down control” is not one of my concepts, so I don’t know how to parse what I think in the terms you would prefer.
The closest I can come, within my own framework, is to say that certain kinds of systems, if they are organizationally closed and thermodynamically open, can exert a global-to-local constraint on their constituent parts.
Aside on Pascal’s Wager: in context, the Wager is introduced after Pascal has concluded that rational arguments cannot establish either the existence of God or His non-existence. It’s explicitly made as a way for Pascal to justify his desire to believe in God, given that reason itself is neutral on the issue. In that regard Pascal is very much a forerunner of James’s will to believe and Kierkegaard’s leap of faith.
“All go to Hell” sounds a fun religion!
What position of authority? He’s neither their parent nor their caretaker.
Patrick’s not provided any evidence that any child has been abused. So Patrick should probably just shut up until he does.
Isn’t that where all the fun people are?
Teachers are positions of authority.
Mung,
That’s a pretty safe bet in “All go to Hell”, Mung.
ROFL
As in everyone is a teacher therefore everyone is in a position of authority?
What teaching credentials do you think Sal has?
You think of this as a problem that can be solved by logic, but even rats have enough brainpower to understand fairness. It’s an evolved capability in social critters.
In loco parentis, in at least two senses.
Yes, I have. I’ve made my point in comments here and in those I’ve linked. I’ve also linked to Sal’s summary of his own behavior.
If you’d care to address the actual arguments I will consider any supportable points you make. If you just want to keep whining, that’s up to you.
exactly
I’m puzzled as to why you would think that I see this as a problem to be solved by logic. Where have I given that impression?
I certainly think that at bottom morality is “an evolved capability in social critters.” However, I also think that the kinds of selective forces operative in hominid evolution enabled the emergence of a different kind of morality than what we see in other “social critters.”
But by my lights, morality as distinctive kind of social practice does in fact give us all the objectivity that we need in order to have a reasonable dialogue about which laws are just or unjust. That’s why I’ve been fighting against the assumption that naturalism entails subjectivism.
No, as in a class setting the teacher is a position of authority over the student especially if their attendance is involuntary.
Probably about as much as a football coach who teaches social studies
It’s also fallacious to assume that because an objection is old that it’s incorrect. Homer’s objection is absolutely right, unless one wants to beg the question in favor on one’s favorite God. Pascal is supposed to be offering a reason to believe not be engaging in fallacy mongering.
They aren’t consistent with each other. (See the Inquistion.)
Not only do the responses “not refute it,” they are terrible.
Mung: Patrick’s not provided any evidence that any child has been abused.
No, you haven’t. Who were the doctors who examined the children?
No child, no doctor, no examination, no medical finding of any abuse, no evidence of abuse. None.
Perhaps Patrick is an expert and has examined the allegedly abused children himself. I’m betting no on that one. I just love atheist witch-hunts. That and an atheist on a righteous crusade. That’s another one I love.
Evidence, Patrick. Objective empirical evidence. You have none.
Are you referring to (not allowed to refer to him by name, but sounds like Putin) to the crazed tyrant attempting to stifle any discussions about him?
I was just going to say about this comment….”Pfftwaa Gaafff..It wasPutinfffgaa”*
*Comment unintelligible due to muzzle with Russian characters on it.
Not that he will ever admit it (or anything else….EVER), but Patrick and his liberty loving friends will all choke on Trump. If they hadn’t voted for their own chosen moron, the world would be a hell of a lot safer today.
But he apparently acts as their “teacher”; in his own words:
I’m teaching them how critical thinking shows the claims of evolutionists is not well supported by repeatable observations, and why I believe a Creator is a better explanation.
Children naturally look up to adults for mentorship and leadership — any attempt to mislead them is an abuse of authority.
If only you applied that same rigor to your beliefs about religion and intelligent design creationism. You’d be part of the reality-based community in no time!
I’m not going to keep repeating myself for your amusement. Re-read what Sal wrote and what I wrote. His behavior constitutes intellectual and emotional abuse of children by an adult in a position of authority. If you’d care to address my actual points, I’ll respond.
And the same could be said for you, Patrick. If you don’t like the “objective empirical evidence” test when it’s applied to you then perhaps you should think twice before using it to beat others with.
Objective empirical evidence of child abuse would first require that we have a child that we can examine, or that professionals can examine. Produce the child or shut up.
How is Pascal’s Wager supposed to work???
I don’t believe in the hell worshipper’s God. And since the hell worshipper’s terroristic threats aren’t evidence that hell exists I don’t have any reason to stop believing in a good God.
I always thought religion was like the blind men and god was the elephant.
It is a wager, not a proof
Are the contents of the elephant’s stomach frozen? Tropical?
Glen Davidson
But a wager to believe. Which is one of the weirder things about it.
I might believe because of a proof, but I don’t think I could because of a wager.
To be fair to Pascal, Catholicism doesn’t really demand belief but practice. Belief is certainly preferred, but if not, at least do the rituals, penances, rites, whatever. So there’s more sense to Pascal’s Wager in Catholicism than in most of Protestantism.
But it seems that all too many Protestants don’t understand that–you just can’t fake out God, actually.
Glen Davidson
To reiterate a point I tried making above: in Pensees, Pascal’s Wager comes at a specific point in the overall argument.
He has already shown (he thinks) that reasoning (both logical and empirical) cannot decide between the propositions “God exists” and “God does not exist”. The arguments are equally strong (or weak) on both sides.
And he has already expressed that he wants it to be the case that God exists.
What Pascal needs, then, is a device for bringing his reasoning into conformity with his emotional needs, so that he can permit himself to believe.
The Wager is simply that device.
Not true. Sal’s admitted behavior constitutes child abuse for the reasons already given. Feel free to address those directly when you’re done whining.
Heat death of the universe will come first.
I.e., at the precise moment patrick admits his first error.
Well, religion is like the blind men, anyhow.
(Only Ganesha is like the elephant.)
Produce the objective empirical evidence of an abused child Patrick. That would be the honest thing to do.
God. I am starting to sound just like Patrick. Wonder if next up I’ll start accusing other people of child abuse with no actual evidence of abuse.
I’ve provided the objective, empirical evidence of Sal’s own words and explained how what he described constitutes child abuse. You can start with this comment and follow the links to the evidence and argument supporting my position.
You can rhetorically squirm trying to change the criteria all you want, but if you want to make your case you’ll need to defend Sal’s admitted behavior. Good luck with that.
Patrick, if you don’t have an abused child, you don’t have child abuse. Those are the facts. It’s like accusing someone of being a rapist without there being any woman who was actually raped.
You’re putting on a great show though. Doing “The Skeptical Zone” proud! Lizzie bless you.