Do you really want Richard Dawkins for a spokesman?

Just askin'.

 

Doesn't your question sort of imply that non-believers are organized or have some common cause around which they rally?

If so, I think that premise is flawed. The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in God. That's it.

Furthermore, there is no atheist movement. Despite the rallying cries and cheers of some members of skeptic forums, there is no skeptic movement either. There are skeptical activists who actively promote debunking of junk science, supernatural nonsense, and common myths and misconceptions, and who try to expose charlatans who exploit general ignorance and gullibility to con normal people out of their hard-earned money (e.g., James Randi and Penn & Teller). I don't regard that as a skeptical movement, however, and I eschew that phrase and notion.

As for Dawkins' being a spokesman and proponent of Darwinism or evolution by means of natural selection, there are probably few persons on Earth who are better qualified by means of their scientific credentials (he's an evolutionary biologist) and who are more eloquent on the subject than Dr. Richard Dawkins. Sure, I get that he can be brusque and confrontational at times. Nevertheless, I like him a lot. He's no wuss, and he is passionate about his beliefs and ideals, and he knows his stuff.

Frankly, I'm glad that there is someone with as high a profile as he has (and as high as Christopher Hitchens has as well) who has taken it upon himself to try to spread the word that on the whole, organized religion has been a net detraction from the advancement and peaceful existence of human civilization. He seems to regard it as the largest impediment to the widespread acceptance among laypersons of firmly established science studied and tested and accepted among scientists over the past 150 years. In other words, religious or superstitious nonsense is standing in the way of society's benefiting from a lot of technology that is available now, or could be available if not for irrational fears and superstitions (such as those against eating genetically engineered so-called "Frankenfoods" in much of the EU, and against engaging in medical research using stem-cells in the US). To me, that's a good message, and one that needs to be told.

As for his being a spokesman for non-believers in general, I disagree that he speaks for all of them. He speaks for himself, but he makes a good case for non-belief.

 

I am my only spokesmen, i speak for myself. Dawkins has had a huge positive influence for me concerning atheism, i can think of a lot worse spokespeople to listen to. I value his intelligence and debating skills. I voted yeah he's awesome. I want to read the entire god delusion, what i've seen on youtube was very interesting and entertaining.

'What if you're wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?' LOL

A great vid for atheists and how to justify their beliefs. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M&feature=related - Question and answer section

A great radio interview, short but great http://media.richarddawkins.net/audio/2008/RD%20with%20John%20Humphrys%20on%20Cardinal.mp3

 

I think Dawkins is kind of arrogant and as a Christian I disagree with him, but at the same time I think he has a fine mind and has made some insightful contributions. Discussions about the existence of God will never be the same after the Blind Watchmaker, God of Gaps, and Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

I can understand how you might think he's arrogant, but I think he's actually humble enough, just a little brusque. I don't think he means to be rude or dismissive, but he can come across that way. Anyway, I would describe him as disgusted more than anything else. Please allow me to explain.

A really telling exchange is one he has with Ted Haggerty, the disgraced televangelist formerly of the mega-church in Colorado, during a segment featured in Dawkins' BBC documentary "The God Delusion," which preceded his book by the same name. It used to be on Google Video, and it may still be on YouTube for all I know, but I'm sure you can find it if you like.

It's not Dawkins who appears arrogant in the segment. It's Haggerty. Haggerty is smug, patronizing, and dismissive. He's a complete asshole. Dawkins, on the other hand, is clearly fuming and angry while he is in Haggerty's presence. Sure, Dawkins comes to him fully intending to confront him and ask him accusing questions, and he does so. Dawkins is motivated by his belief that Haggerty is nothing but a fraud and a charlatan, however, and he aims to draw him out with reason and debate. Haggerty evades his questions, however, and eventually has Dawkins thrown off the property. It turns out Haggerty was in fact a fraud and a charlatan, but his scandal about sex and drugs didn't erupt until a year or two after Dawkins' documentary film was made.

Anyway, in his book The God Delusion, Dawkins explains the impetus for his writing the book. He says that when he was a young scientist in the 70s, it was an exciting time for him. Not only were there lots of new discoveries and exciting theories being made and discussed, but there seemed to be a sort of renaissance of secularism and a turning away from religious dogma and ceremony in the West. He hoped and fully expected the trend to continue, so that perhaps within his lifetime a new age of reason would prevail.

Thirty years later, he was disgusted to find just the opposite had happened. Everywhere he looked, people seemed to be embracing more and more superstition, mythology, and faith. Reason was losing ground in the general public, and the pendulum was clearly swinging the other way. This was especially true in the US, where state legislatures were proposing to pass bills requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools in a science curriculum, for heaven's sake! He wanted to get a serious dialogue going in public about faith and reason, to create a stir so that the public would take notice. I think he also hoped to foster a climate in the US especially (it already exists in much of the EU) where atheists could come out of the shadows and proudly and freely admit their lack of faith, without fear of adverse repercussions socially or in the workplace.

You may find him or his message arrogant. I think it's more accurate to say he's disgusted with the tenacity and virulence of Christian superstition and mythology in our modern society. I think he finds the essence of the Christian message that we somehow need saving from something beyond our control to be deplorable and unworthy of admiration. Furthermore, I will add my own opinion that the belief that a Creator made the world for our benefit is the height of conceit on the part of humans who believe it. Now granted, arrogance and conceit are not the same thing, but might it be a little ironic for someone who holds the belief described above to find Dawkins arrogant, given that he believes life itself to be amazing in its beauty, diversity, and complexity, but also tiny and insignificant in the grander scheme of things? I mean, isn't the latter the more humble belief of the two?

 

I thought I was basically defending Dawkins. He does strike me, however, as one-sided and dismissive of religion, possibly because, as you say, he associates it with certain tendencies that I also find alarming. (This, by the way, seems to be a common reaction that probably explains the virulent anti-Christian hate speech found on the "Christian" forum.) There does indeed seem to be, for whatever reason, a trend toward superstition, irrationalism, and religious fanaticism in the world: Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, etc. I suspect it's a reaction against the complexities and uncertainties of the modern world, and the coldness of the secular-bureaucrtaic society which some people (including me) associate with Dawkins' brand of rationalism. In the United States, this phenomenon is fed by deliberate manipulation by the Republican Party for political purposes. Since the "Reagan Revolution" in the 80s, the Republican "base" has been the Christian religious right. As I've said in other posts, this crew would be the first to bash Jesus should he ever come again--long-haired Jewish radical liberal peacenik that he was, who criticized the rich, hung out with the dregs of society, preached tolerance and unconditional love, undermined family values, kept silent about gays and abortion, etc. The Establishment Christians of today, in my opinion, are latter day Pharisees who shouldn't be confused with Christians. I disagree with Dawkins, but I thank God for him, as a person who is talking back to the religious rightwing establishment. He's doing the Lord's work! What would Jesus do? That's what Jesus did!

 

Absolutely. And why shouldn't he be one-sided? He believes the pervasiveness and influence on thought, culture, family life, research, industry, and political policies that religion has is detrimental to all of us in the aggregate, and the time for it to go has long since come. I see no reason for someone with that viewpoint to pretend to be what Christians so often refer to as "open-minded."

I use scare quotes there because some Christians have co-opted the term to mean something it doesn't. I cannot recall who coined the phrase, and I cannot quote it properly verbatim, but essentially the proper retort to that improper usage is, "I am open-minded, but not so open-minded that my brains fall out."

That phrase refers to the fact that not all conflicting beliefs or ideas have equal merit. Dawkins' suggestion that if you want to be that "open-minded," then why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a terrific illustration of how the essential Christian story of Jesus' virgin birth, his performing miracles, his being the Son of God, the purpose of his death, and his resurrection has no more evidentiary support than the FSM. Why is it so obvious that genuine belief in the FSM is ludicrous, but belief in the Christian story of Jesus is not? When viewed from that perspective, Dawkins' one-sidedness is justified and understandable.

Yes, and although the dangers that fanaticism pose to civilization seem obvious, the dangers of the pervasiveness and virulence of increased belief in superstition and irrational ideas about how the world works are not so obvious. Indeed, many persons dispute that they are dangerous at all. That's another topic for another discussion, however.

Maybe so, but retreating into belief in the supernatural and a magical Sky Daddy and Creator is the easy cop out for far too many. It's the God of the gaps again.

"Goddidit" will never help us understand and explain the world better. Science can, has, and will continue to do so, at least with respect to many of the how questions. Science does not and cannot address the big why questions. They are properly the domain of philosophy, not science. Religious belief gives us completely fabricated answers to the why questions, as comforting to many as some of those are, and philosophy can never do anything but pose the why questions. Philosophers who attempt to answer the why questions usually are straying into religious territory, or they are fabricating their own answers out of pure conjecture.

I'm not fond of either kind of fabrication. Conjecture and lies are of no comfort to me. Give me the cold truth supported with sound theory and solid empirical evidence to back it up. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

Dawkins is rational and chooses emphatically to reject any beliefs not based on reason and evidence. If that is cold, well, then the universe is a cold place. Warm, fluffy bunnies to keep you company are for children. Dawkins regards the comforting aspects of some religious beliefs to be akin to sleeping with a warm, fluffy stuffed bunny to keep you comfortable at night, and he thinks it's silly for adults to retreat to that kind of position. Looking and facing real truth about the world is tough business, but thoughtful, reasonable, and educated persons ought to be doing it, not joining the ignorant by embracing superstition, mythology, and other nonsense.

Secularism doesn't have to be as cold and lonely as so many critics of it suggest. In speaking with other non-believers, I find a very common thread among us is that it is liberating and mind-expanding to break free of the chains of religious belief. Suddenly, once we allow reason to take over the role belief once performed, the world contains no sleepless-night inducing internal contradictions and bullshit rationalizations, and no fear of the unknown, Satan, hell, or a judgmental God. Instead, the unknown becomes something to be explored, to be chartered and mapped for us and for our progeny. It is glorious and wondrous out there, not scary. That's how Carl Sagan saw it, and I think that's a beautiful outlook. No god is necessary. Goddidit has no place in that world.

It is now a bipartisan issue. I regard this as cynical pandering on both sides to what pollsters, politicians, and pundits believe to be the wishes of a faithful Christian majority of the electorate.

Why else would Barack Obama have to declare so many times publicly that he is a Christian? Why does Hillary Clinton visit predominately black churches and ineptly try to adopt their vernacular?

Ask yourself this. Could an avowed non-believer be a viable contender for high public office at the national level in either of the two predominant parties? I think certainly not is the answer for President, and probably not for the Senate or a Congressional seat, depending on in which state one is running.

I agree very much, especially with your metaphor of conservative, fundamentalist Christians being latter day Pharisees. That is very apt. I also agree with your assessment that if they met him today, they would utterly reject the real Jesus as described in the New Testament as a liberal who is not a true Christian. The irony of that is entirely lost on them, of course.

I disagree with your final remark that they shouldn't be confused with Christians. This is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. They profess to be Christians, and they are. They are just one flavor of Christian -- one you happen to find obnoxious perhaps, and one you do not admire or possibly even respect. I'm with you, only I find the whole Christian messianic message to be mythology, and not even a very good mythology either.

I also abhor the "we are all born sinners who need saving" bullshit, and even worse, the "it is my duty as a Christian to witness and spread the gospel and help save the souls of those not yet saved" business.

Save your guilt trips and your proselytizing, Christians. If you want to wallow in guilt and hypocrisy, have at it. Stop judging and condemning others, however, and leave us the fuck alone on Saturday mornings at home. I don't want to talk about Jesus with you on my porch. Release the hounds! (Pardon my rant, Okie; it's not directed at you)

Ha. That's an interesting take on what Dawkins is doing, and I suspect he would be slightly amused, but somewhat uncomfortable with your characterization and comparison. I agree that it is good that he is taking the religious right to task, and you're right that they are his targets more so than "moderate Christians," as he regards the former as dangerous to our society and our freedom.

Dawkins also believes Jesus is most likely fictional, as do I, and he does not believe in any deity at all, so the Lord does not have any work to do, as he doesn't exist. Dawkins isn't doing the Lord's work from Dawkins' perspective; he is standing up for reason against a tide of irrationality. He is merely one of many scientists who stand on the shoulders of the ancient Greek scientists, Isaac Newton, and so many others from the age of modern science. He doesn't have Carl Sagan's affability or gift for explaining difficult concepts in an easy-to-relate-to manner that isn't condescending. Nevertheless, he is a good ambassador for science and reason all the same, and an even better foil for zealots and purveyors of and believers in superstition and other baseless nonsense.

 

Well no, but that doesn't stop anyone from proclaiming themselves leader, especially if no-one stops them.

 

If that's your take on Dawkins, then I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken. Nowhere has he proclaimed himself the "leader" of atheists -- nor does he even view himself to be one -- and I defy you to cite me a source in which he has.

He's an advocate, yes, but leader, no.

 

I know what you mean, I can't remember the last time anyone debated the existence of God without referring the Flying Spaghetti Monster. To be honest though, I think that's kind of my problem with him. If he's not setting himself up as a role model, he's doing a pretty good job of getting every kid in the world reciting his arguments to the letter, without having gone through the process required to get there, if that makes sense.

I'm also frustrated with the way he varies his position by over-simplifying it so much; apparently his books do go into the social function of God and superstition, but in the media he pretty much completely avoids the subject, which wouldn't be so bad except that most people won't ever read his books.

My problem is more with the media electing him as a kind of spokesman for atheism, getting him on when they need someone to "defend" it. I don't think that he's that smart, and his views, when truncated to the degree that they are when they're heard on TV/radio, seem very very close to intolerance. Most atheists I've met have a "live and let live" attitude which I think is a lot more healthy since, unless we have proof that God doesn't exist, we are (or at least should be) lumbered with Bertrand Russell's problem of necessary doubt: "I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine."

It's a real shame he's dead, actually; he really seemed to have his head screwed on.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bertrand_russell.html

 

Oh, I didn't mean that he'd actually done that. Just that someone could. But at the same time, he is constantly on shows expressing his views. Not to say that he shouldn't do that, but he does seem unconcerned that few others are getting their say on the subject. It would be nice if he mentioned that he's not a spokesperson now and then.

 

That's a valid point, and I suppose he often is regarded by some persons as being a spokesperson for atheists in general, and for scientists as well.

You might find interesting a short clip from YouTube. In it Neil deGrasse Tyson, a brilliant astrophysicist and cosmologist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, takes Richard Dawkins to task publicly at a science conference entitled "Beyond Belief" for being so abrasive and combative with persons who do not agree with him. DeGrasse Tyson gently but firmly chides Dawkins for being dismissive of others' beliefs and lack of understanding, and he suggests that Dawkins' approach to addressing the public might be hurting the cause he wishes to further rather than helping it.

It is good-natured, and Dawkins has a terrific reply ("I gratefully accept the rebuke," which provokes a lot of laughter, including his own) and tells an amusing short anecdote about the attitude an editor of New Scientist magazine had towards those who reject science.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYBFqse7tiU

 

It's a fair point though. The idea that god is a delusion doesn't inherently make it harmful, or at least no more harmful than any number of other delusions around which we base our lives - abstract concepts that don't "exist" in the sense that a tree or a rock does, but which have an impact on human life. Justice, mercy, love, truth, money, power, all of these things exist but have no factual basis other than that, as a society, we agree to make them exist.

Dawkins' attitude is definitely what alienates me from his message. It came across far more on the show he did about new age beliefs and superstition (presumably in response to being accused of just picking on the major religions), where he was testing the abilities of dowsers, among others. He seemed far more concerned with proving that they were delusional than, for example, establishing whether they are actually able to do what they claim. My father used to work for a company that used dowsers, and he knows they have a far greater success rate in the field than they did during Dawkins' experiment. We wondered if it was possible for a dowser to hear or otherwise perceive water in motion, which wouldn't be the case during the experiment. In any case, Dawkins' wish was to prove these people were delusional; he seemed indifferent to whether their delusion was actually a bad thing. It just seemed like the grinding of a personal axe. And it's the same with religion really. He is so critical of belief, as if it's the worst thing in the world, but he is very selective with the symptoms of it that he raises.

 

As I've said before, I think Dawkins has his redeeming qualities, but I find some of his opinions disturbing. For example, he thinks there should be no Amish--or at least that no parent should be allowed to raise Amish children. This is one instance of his broader contention that religious instruction of children is a form of child abuse. I happen to have mixed feelings about the Amish. The bureaucratic industrial technological society we've created has its downside, and there are times when I look fondly and nostalgically toward the Amish, as people who are enjoying the benefits of a simpler life from simpler times gone by. Dawkins, however, thinks that the simplicity of Amish existence is unacceptable, because it stifles knowledge and inquiry. I share his preference for knowledge and inquiry over tradition and the simple life. But I consider that to be my own personal value choice, not something I feel comfortable imposing on others, such as the Amish. I'm glad there are Amish in the world, although I'm hooked on the lifestyles of mainstream American living. There's a price to be paid either way, and for Dawkins to say that the price of industrial-technological society is acceptable and the price of Amish society is not strikes me as a somewhat fanatical "my way or the highway" position. First they came for the Amish. Will the Hippies be next?

 

This might reflect a divide between how much value Dawkins places on knowledge and inquiry versus how much he does on family autonomy vis-a-vis the right to raise one's children however one sees fit. It is an interesting question.

We see this playing out right now in that weirdo cult in Texas. That is the precise issue in that matter. How do we as a society balance the interests of parents in raising their children in whatever manner they deem best for them, and instilling in them their own beliefs, however bizarre, versus imposing a minimum standard on the family that comes from society, which is from outside the family itself?

Dawkins obviously believes relatively primative beliefs and lifestyles that rest on dogmatic ideals and a static set of knowledge are detrimental to the children who are reared in such conditions, especially when there is a choice readily available to allow them to thrive among those who seek education and knowledge, and who value inquiry. I agree with him, although I'm not as extreme in my opinion as he appears to be.

If you concede that the state has a right to interfere with the mess in Texas on the grounds of possible child abuse, I think you have to grant Dawkins some validity in his charge of child abuse against the Amish. This issue becomes even clearer and perhaps better delineated on the side of imposing restrictions on family autonomy whenever we hear about some child who has died for lack of medical care because his or her parents are Christian Scientists, and they refuse to seek medical care in the belief that God will heal their children in response to their prayers alone.

That's an illustration of how dangerous religious nonsense and superstition can be, and in fact is in so many cases. Modern medicine grounded firmly in science can save so many lives that would have been lost under the same conditions 100, 50, or even 15 years ago. Religious beliefs can never make the same claim. Never. There is not a shred of credible evidence, other than highly suspect anecdotes, that prayer alone has ever cured anyone of disease, or prolonged the life of someone dying, or saved someone from a mortal injury or terminal disease. Dawkins finds that reason enough to discard the religious nonsense and get on with the business of living our lives in the here and now, and to revel in the majesty of nature itself, and how glorious it is, and how lucky we are to be here to enjoy it. Not only does belief in the Judeo/Christian God or Allah diminish that gloriousness in his opinion, but it utterly prevents one with belief from fully appreciating and enjoying this life on Earth. Furthermore, the fundamentalists too often eschew inquiry at all, on the grounds that God made everything the way it is and the way it is described in holy scriptures, and thus there is nothing else man can learn or say about it.

So, do parents inherently have a right to impose their own religious beliefs, no matter how bizarre or potentially dangerous (think of the Jonestown cultists, for instance), on their children? If not, where are the limits? Surely in the US, our legislatures, our child protective agencies, our law enforcement officers, and our courts have recognized that there are limits in some cases.

As for slippery slope argument about first coming for the Amish, will the Hippies be next business, I don't see any common set of religious beliefs among Hippies. In fact, they seem to run the whole gamut. Hell, Carl Sagan held no religious beliefs and was the quintessential scientist and science ambassador, yet he is known to have been an avid and unabashed pot smoker. I cannot recall who it was, but there was also a Nobel winning physicist, I believe, who admitted sometime after having won his prize that some of his best ideas central to his thesis came to him while either tripping or stoned.

I suppose that begs the question, what the hell is a Hippie, anyway? Yeah, I get that supposedly it's about embracing a certain sort of carefree and footloose lifestyle. Nevertheless, I think there are an awful lot of persons who either identify with or who claim to be Hippies who compartmentalize their lives. Many of them live what appear to be ordinary, middle class, or suburban lifestyles. Many of them even work in the business world, finance, law, medicine, or some other "establishment" type of sector in the working world. When they come home and shred their shirts and ties, or their female business wear, however, they listen to trance, jam music, the Dead, Pink Floyd, or whatever their taste happens to be. They might burn some incense, eat vegetarian, and smoke a little weed, or trip, or just read some weird, free thinking stuff like Hunter S. Thompson or Jack Kerouac or Alan Ginsburg or William Burroughs. Maybe they just go to Coachella or Bonnaroo once a year and get their ya yas out. Who knows?

 

Yeah, what bothers me is his unwillingness to hold non-religious beliefs up to the same standard as religious ones purely because they don't involve "the supernatural". Really, by this standard, raising a child to speak a specific language is akin to child abuse as well, since there's no cold hard logical reason for a word to mean anything. My frustration with the aggressive side of atheism is their refusal or inability to see any correlation between the assumptions of secular thinking and those of specific religions. As I said, I hope Dawkins does acknowledge that faith and belief have just as necessary a place in secular life as they do in religion, but either way, I wish he would say it more often instead of glossing over it.

 

I basically agree with him, too, on the desirability of education and knowledge, but disagree that it would be appropriate to describe those who disagree as child abusers. I also believe that the policies advocated by the Republican Party are detrimental to our country, but would hestiate to advocate taking Republicans' children away from them and raising them in more enlightened liberal Democrat homes. Because1) I could be wrong; (2) I think pluralism is a good thing; and (3)if I did advocate such a thing in Oklahoma, I'd be hanging from a lampost before sunset. Basically, I think Dawkins is intellectually brilliant, but suffers from a deficiency in other important qualities: good judgment, emotional intelligence, and common sense. It's all too common for people who know a lot to think that they know it all, and it can be disastrous when they proceed to act on that assumption, especially when they have any power--e.g., China, the Soviet Union under Stalin, & Pol Pot's Cambodia.

This is a good example of where I think good judgment, balance, and common sense are essential for humane outcomes. There are two considerations to balance in judging the best interests of children: protecting them from harm inflicted by their parents and protecting them from potential harm inflicted by institutions purporting to act in their best interests. Giving the State a free hand to step in invites potentially horrendous abuses. For example, in the United States and Australia in an earlier era, the government decided it would be in the best interest of aboriginal children to be removed from their homes and cultures and assimilated to the dominant culture. I could see Dawkins going along with this decision, but today the consensus is that it was a brutal, abusive, and destructive form of cultural genocide. As an incidental consequence, it also subjected many children to sexual abuse in state-sponsored orphanages and boarding schools. On the other hand, there are obvious limits to what parents should be allowed to do to their children, even if they think it's right. If the parents were Baal and Moloch worshippers, for example, I'd have no problem taking the kids out of the home before they go into the oven.

 

I think you're probably right about the emotional intelligence. I have observed that he seems to be a bit socially awkward.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply I am in favor of more government intervention on the whole. I firmly believe that an awful lot of meddling with families social workers do is on balance more harmful than helpful. There are cases in which parents are just really bad for their own kids, and foster care or otherwise being a ward of the state is sometimes the lesser of the two evils.

I'm aware of the Stolen Generations in Australia. If you haven't already seen Rabbit Proof Fence, I suggest you do when you have the chance. It's a gripping and emotional film about three real girls who were among those stolen from their mothers in the 1930s. They escaped, and two of them made it back home. Anyway, yeah, I certainly agree that it was a horrible thing for the English governors and bureaucrats to do. At the time, however, they thought they were doing the most humane thing. It wasn't controversial to them back in the 30s. It's amazing but terribly sad that the practice continued all the way up into the 1970s.

I'm not as familiar with how the US government removed American Indian children from their homes, but I don't doubt it. It is shameful how our government has treated American Indians throughout our country's existence, and how the European explorers and colonists treated them before that.

I might add that the Roman Catholic Church had a great hand in the cultural genocide of many of the South American peoples, especially the Jesuits along parts of the Amazon.

 

In the United States, it was the Indian Boarding School Program, that began in the 1870s as a "humane" alternative to physically exterminating the Indians, and continued into the 1930s. some 100,000 Indian children were affected. Boarding schools were typically far away from reservations to reduce contact with families and parental visits were discouraged. Students were not allowed to speak their native languages nor practice their native religions, and they were forced to study the Bible (Dawkins would have objected, I'm sure, but he might have them studying Darwin). The Indian children were taught that their families were savages and the white man's civilization was superior. There is no atheist counterpart to this in the United States (Christian fundamentalists seem to think the public school system is comparable), but my point was that this can happen when bureaucrats have power, believe that they are culturally superior, and believe that they know what's in the best interest of the child.

 

Maybe not so much in America, but I'm pretty sure similar things have been done in the name of secular causes all through the 20th Century. It's certainly not beyond the scope of atheists to attempt a bit of mass cultural conditioning.