Atheism and Child Abuse Peter S.

Williams I woke up this morning to a radio news item about the continuing scandal of child abuse carried out by some Catholic priests during the 1980s and 1990s. In a recent editorial for the secular humanist magazine Free In uiry! entitled "#eligion"s #eal Child $buse"! #ichard %awkins opined that& "'dious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is! I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of ha(ing been brought up Catholic in the first place." )1* %awkins was himself the (ictim of a +atin master who "fondled" him in the s uash court& "a disagreeable sensation for a nineteen,year,old! a mi-ture of embarrassment and skin,crawling re(ulsion . . .").* /owe(er! says %awkins! this "was certainly not in the same league as being led to belie(e that I! or someone I knew! might go to e(erlasting fire.")0* %awkins has in his sights the fact that the Catholic Church has traditionally taught children that unbelie(ers 1e(en! in some cases! 2rotestant Christians3 will spend eternity in a fiery /ell& "4he mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of (iolence and terrible pain! if sincerely belie(ed by the child! could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of se-ual abuse. $n e-treme threat of (iolence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is.")5* For %awkins! "4he threat of eternal hell is an e-treme e-ample of mental abuse! 6ust as (iolent sodomy is an e-treme e-ample of physical abuse.")7* 'f course! one could reply that the doctrine of /ell should not be understood as a threat of (iolence and terrible pain! but as a lo(ing warning about the intrinsic conse uences of re6ecting 8esus. 9arning children not to stick their fingers in electricity sockets does not constitute child abuse: neither does warning children about the conse uences of re6ecting 8esus. /owe(er! there are ways and ways of framing such a warning. 4he warning about the conse uences of sticking one"s fingers in electricity sockets could be gi(en in lurid "18" certificate detail! and might thereby constitute mental abuse. +ikewise! the doctrine of /ell can be dwelt upon in a similarly lurid manner! and might thereby constitute mental abuse. In this sense then! I think %awkins is right to point out the dangers of unnecessarily traumatising children about the harsh truths of reality. Christians should speak the truth! e(en about /ell! but they should speak the truth in lo(e. 4hen again! some Christians would uestion the literal content of the "traditional" doctrine of /ell.);* %awkins takes this point on board& It will be said that the Catholic Church no longer preaches /ellfire in its full horror. 4hat depends on how upmarket is your area and how progressi(e your priest. <ut eternal punishment certainly was the normal doctrine dished out to congregations! including terrified children! back in the time when many of the priests now facing e-pulsion or prosecution committed their physical abuses.)=* 9ith the "traditional" /ell,fire doctrine specifically in his sights! %awkins laments! "there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely belie(e it! often continuing right through to adulthood and old age! until death finally releases them.")8* <ut! as /amlet said! there"s the rub. Concessions about how the doctrine is taught! and e(en what doctrine of /ell is taught! aside! %awkins" criti ue crucially assumes that the doctrine of /ell is false. 9hat if death does not release people from the fear of /ell! as %awkins assumes! but deli(ers them into /ell 1or /ea(en3! as the church assumes> 4o paraphrase 2ascal! we should be much more afraid of being wrong and disco(ering that /ell is real than of being wrong and disco(ering that /ell is not real. ?(en the remote chance of a catastrophic e(ent 6ustifies a serious warning about the possible dangers. ?(en if there is room for an in,house theological dispute o(er the precise content of the doctrine of /ell! there is little room for doubt o(er the basic facts that there is

a real! and best,a(oided! flip,side to the possibility of /ea(en. @ranted! if there is no /ell! then teaching its e-istence 1and doing so in an insensiti(e manner3 might result in unnecessary mental anguish. <ut if /ell is real . . . 'n the other hand! doesn"t %awkins" psychological criticism of religion cut both ways> %awkins" own brand of atheistic scientism can result in its fair share of mental anguish& $ foreign publisher of my first book confessed the he could not sleep for three nights after reading it! so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold! bleak message. 'thers ha(e asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. $ teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book! because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. /e ad(ised her not to show the book to any of her friends! for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism.)9* 4hat first book of his was 4he Aelfish @ene! in which %awkins argued that "we are sur(i(al machines B robot (ehicles blindly programmed to preser(e the selfish molecules known as genes.")10* 'n %awkins" materialistic world(iew there may be no /ell to fear! but there is no /ea(en either B e(erything begins and ends in nothingness. %awkins acknowledges that "accusations of barren desolation! of promoting an arid and 6oyless message! are fre uently flung at science in general! and it is easy for scientists to play up to them.")11* In Cnwea(ing the #ainbow he uotes from 2eter $tkins" book! 4he Aecond +aw 119853& 9e are children of chaos! and the deep structure of change is decay. $t root! there is only corruption! and the unstemmable tide of chaos. @one is purpose: all that is left is direction. 4his is the bleakness we ha(e to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Cni(erse.)1.* %awkins calls this "a (ery proper purging of saccharine false purpose")10*! a "laudable tough, mindedness in the debunking of cosmic sentimentality".)15* /e does not point out that $tkins" assertions are philosophical and not scientific. /e simply says that uestions about the ultimate nature of reality are irrele(ant to uestions about personal meaning& "2resumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos! but do any of us really tie our life"s hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway>")17* $s a philosophical reply to his critics this is deeply flawed! because uestions about the ultimate nature of reality are of crucial rele(ance to uestions about personal meaning. %awkins" focus on the ultimate fate of the cosmos o(erlooks the issue of cosmic purpose raised by $tkins. <oth $tkins and %awkins agree that! on a cosmic scale! the idea of purpose must gi(e way to the idea of mere direction: a direction that results from the unintended chance interplay of physical cause and effect. 4here is no purpose behind our e-istence! no goal towards which our e-istence is launched and at which it can successfully arri(e or tragically fail to arri(e. %awkins thinks! as Ahakespeare wrote! that life is "a tale told by an idiot! filled with sound and fury! signifying nothing." <ut on a personal le(el he says! "I want to guard against . . . people therefore getting nihilistic in their personal li(es.")1;* Isn"t this a case of trying to ha(e it both ways> %awkins says he sees no contradiction here& "Dou can ha(e a (ery happy and fulfilled personal life e(en if you think the uni(erse at large is a tale told by an idiot. Dou can still set up goals and ha(e a (ery worthwhile life and not be nihilistic about it at a personal le(el.")1=* 4hus %awkins attempts to launch an unsinkable ship of personal meaning on the pointless cosmic ocean. /owe(er! in %awkins" uni(erse! "purpose" is nothing but a euphemism for the contingent outworkings of chance and necessity. %awkins may try to compartmentalise "personal meaning" from "cosmic meaning"! but he smashes through this artificial dichotomy with the giant iceberg of naturalistic e(olution! reducing the personal to the impersonal! the free to the determined! and so sinking his supposedly unsinkable ship of "personal meaning" in the icy depths of meaninglessness. %awkins is uite right when he says that& I can show that from a %arwinian point of (iew there is more %arwinian ad(antage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful! without saying that I therefore think human males are 6ustified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wi(es. 4here is no logical connection between what is and what ought . . .)18*

/owe(er! the crucial point is that %awkins" naturalistic philosophy gi(es him no grounds for saying that someone who takes the opposite point of (iew is in any sense wrong to do so , "4here is no logical connection between what is and what ought": it"s all 6ust a matter of choice& If somebody used my (iews to 6ustify a completely self,centred lifestyle! which in(ol(ed trampling all o(er other people in any way they chose . . . I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. . . I couldn"t! ultimately! argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obno-ious. I think I could finally only say! E9ell! in this society you can"t get away with itE and call the police.)19* In other words! in the final analysis "might makes right" and the %arwinian "law of the 6ungle" rules. %awkins" atheistic world(iew doesn"t 6ustify "a completely self,centred lifestyle"! but then! it doesn"t 6ustify any lifestyle. 4he choice between lifestyles! including the choice between a life that includes abusing children and a life trying to pre(ent that abuse! is nothing but a non,rational manifestation of a Feitzchian "will to power". $s the agnostic philosopher $nthony '"/ear says of %awkins! "this particular %arwinian is uite unable to e-plain why we ha(e an obligation to act against our "selfish" genes.").0* ?(en %awkins admits& "I realise this is (ery weak . . . <ut I still think it"s a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.").1* It is a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can ne(er discredit %awkins" moral choice not to condone child abuse 1of the physical or mental (ariety3. <ut it is far from being a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can ne(er condemn child abuse either. 4he doctrine of /ell is the flip side of the doctrine of /ea(en)..*! and both doctrines testify that life is not only meaningful! it"s serious. Christians should gi(e some serious thought to how 1and what3 they teach about /ell! especially to children: but atheists should gi(e some serious thought to the fact that without /ea(en and /ell! their world(iew offers neither 6ustice nor hope! in a @odless uni(erse that fails to pro(ide any moral grounds for the condemnation of child,abuse.).0* Footnotes 1. #ichard %awkins! "#eligion"s #eal Child $buse"! Free In uiry! Fall .00.! Gol. ..! Fo. 5.! p. 9 back .. ibid! p. 9 back 0. ibid! p. 9 back 5. ibid! p. 9,1. back 7. ibid! p. 1. back ;. 'n the doctrine of /ell! see ?dward 9. Fudge! 4he Fire 4hat Consumes& $ <iblical and /istorical Atudy of the %octrine of Final 2unishment! 1Cni(ersal 2ublishers! .0003: ?dward 9. Fudge H #obert $ 2eterson! 4wo Giews of /ell& $ <iblical and 4heological %ialogue! 1IG2! .0003: C.A. +ewis! 4he 2roblem of 2ain! 1Fount3: 8erry +. 9alls! /ell& the +ogic of %amnation! 1Cni(ersity of Fotre %ame! 199.3 back =. #ichard %awkins! op cit! p. 1. back 8. ibid! p. 1. back 9. #ichard %awkins! Cnwea(ing the #ainbow! 1+ondon& $llen +aneI4he 2enguin 2ress! 19983! p. i- back 10. #ichard %awkins! 4he Aelfish @ene! 119=;3! 2reface back 11. #ichard %awkins! Cnwea(ing the #ainbow! 1+ondon& $llen +aneI4he 2enguin 2ress! 19983! p. i- back 1.. 2eter $tkins! uoted by #ichard %awkins in Cnwea(ing the #ainbow! p. i- back 10. #ichard %awkins! Cnwea(ing the #ainbow! 1+ondon& $llen +aneI4he 2enguin 2ress! 19983! p. i- back 15. ibid! p. i- back 17. ibid! p. i-,- back 1;. %awkins! Frank Jiele! "%arwin"s %angerous disciple , $n Inter(iew with #ichard %awkins"! 4he Akeptic (ol. 0! no. 5! 1997 back 1=. ibid back 18. #ichard %awkins! "4he Aimple $nswer& Fick 2ollard talks to %r. #ichard %awkins"!

4hird 9ay! $pril 1997! (ol 18! no 0 back 19. ibid back .0. $nthony '"/ear! <eyond ?(olution! 1'-ford3! p. 100 back .1. #ichard %awkins! "4he Aimple $nswer& Fick 2ollard talks to %r. #ichard %awkins"! 4hirdway! $pril 1997! (ol 18! no 0 back ... 'n /ea(en see 2eter Kreeft! /ea(en , the heart"s deepest longing! 1Ignatius3: C.A. +ewis! 4he 2roblem of 2ain! 1Fount3 back .0. 'n the collapse of morality in a @odless uni(erse! cf& 2aul Copan! "Can Jichael Jartin be a Joral #ealist>": 9illiam +ane Craig! "4he Indispensability of 4heological Jeta, ?thical Foundations for Jorality": 8.2. Joreland! "4he ?thical Inade uacy of Faturalism": 2eter A. 9illiams! "4error From the Akies and the ?-istence of @od" back