Devemos contar para as crianças que Papai Noel não existe?

Na verdade, Papai Noel existe sim, enquanto complexo memético (The Meme Machine) capaz de se encarnar em cérebros humanos (ver Milagre da Rua 34). O mesmo pode ser dito do Papai do Céu, claro. O debate sobre o Ateísmo Natalino pode então ser definido pela questão: cada argumento ateísta referente ao fato de ser justificável ou não o uso de mitos culturais na educação infantil (sejam eles religiosos, histórias de contos de fadas ou mitos científicos como a experiência da Torre de Pizza de Galileu) têm o seu análogo tanto na questão de Papai Noel quanto na de Papai do Céu. Ou seja, se não devemos ensinar as crianças sobre Papai do Céu (e depois permitir que, num rito de passagem, adquiram uma visão mais madura da vida), pelo simples fato de serem mentiras que pretensamente minam a confiança das crianças em seus pais, então também devemos banir outras mentiras que contamos a elas, por exemplo:

1. Que devem cuidar dos seus irmãozinhos - uma análise sociobiológica ou mesmo de teoria de jogos diria que a melhor estratégia seria que eles matassem seus irmãozinhos para ficar com toda a atenção dos pais;

2. Que os policiais são bonzinhos e devem ser procurados em caso de emergência;

3. Que comer cenoura faz bem para os olhos;

4. Que papai e mamãe as amam - afinal, somos apenas robôs, veículos de nossos genes, cujo único objetivo biológico é construir outros robozinhos, e o amor é uma miragem mental, sem correlato direto com propriedades atômicas ou eletrônicas...

Comece a pensar e você verá que existem zilhões de outras mentiras que contamos às crianças, e nem por isso elas perdem a fé em nós ou nas pessoas - na verdade, elas aprendem a detectar melhor as mentiras quando são expostas a elas! Ser exposto a mentiras nos deixa mais espertos, com nosso sistema imunológico memético mais desenvolvido. Que Papai Noel seja uma grande mentira cultural e social, nao apenas parental, o recomenda mais ainda. Ou será que queremos culturas humanas expurgadas de toda tradição e todo folclore? Não seria isto o cúmulo do politicamente correto (que expurga nossa linguagem, literatura etc apenas dos termos racistas, sexistas etc?).

Dawkins diz que a Bíblia não é um livro modelo nem de ciência nem de moralidade. Sim, os costumes judaicos antigos eram, pelos nossos padrões atuais eco-feministas-iluministas, realmente bárbaros - o mesmo pode ser dito de qualquer cultura antiga -, mas usar isso como crítica a uma cultura (no caso, a judaico-cristã) é simplesmente um caso claro de pensamento anacronístico, algo imperdoável em cientistas ou pelo menos alguém que conheça o mínimo de pensamento Histórico. A mesma crítica poderia ser feita em relação à obra de Shakespeare... Ciência errada, moralidade errada, cheia de preconceitos contra as minorias... Fazer o que? Proibir as pessoas de ler Sheakespeare (ou pelo menos as crianças?). Queimar o Hamlet ou o Mercador de Veneza?

O estudo psicológico mais recente sobre a crença em Papai Noel diz que, em vez das crianças mais velhas ficarem chateadas por descobrirem que os adultos mentiram para elas, na verdadem se sentem orgulhosas porque agora já não são "criancinhas" e sabem algo que os pequenos não sabem... Um rito de passagem rumo à consciência adulta. Apenas isso...

Da Wikipedia: Psychologist Tamar Murachver said in that it was a cultural, not parental, lie; thus, it does not undermine parental trust.[35] The New Zealand Skeptics also see no harm in parents telling their children that Santa is real. Spokesperson Vicki Hyde said, "It would be a hard-hearted parent indeed who frowned upon the innocent joys of our children's cultural heritage. We save our bah humbugs for the things that exploit the vulnerable."[35]
Dr. John Condry of Cornell University interviewed more than 500 children for a study of the issue and found that not a single child was angry at his or her parents for telling them Santa Claus was real. According to Dr. Condry, "The most common response to finding out the truth was that they felt older and more mature. They now knew something that the younger kids didn't."[36]

Mas Richard Dawkins diz que qualquer pessoa que conta a seus filhos mitos religiosos é um estuprador mental de criancinhas, um pedófilo cujo abuso mental é moralmente mais condenável que o abuso sexual físico, um transmissor de vírus meméticos similar a quem transmite AIDs intencionalmente. Como tenho quatro filhos, este argumento me deixa particularmente aflito, se for válido. Infelizmente este tipo de (falta de) lógica indispõe um grande número de pessoas contra Dawkins e, por tabela, contra a comunidade de cientistas das quais faço parte e que não reconhecem o extremismo de Dawkins (leia-se, prosa retórica cheia de falácias lógicas tipo straw man etc.) como representativo dos cientistas, nem mesmo dos cientistas ateus.

Acredito que o extremismo anti-religioso de Dawkins infelizmente não se deve a algum brio intelectual, mas sim ao medo, ou mesmo paranóia, que aqueles que pertencem a certas minorias discriminadas (como os ateus) acabam desenvolvendo sem perceber. Vejam este gráfico que saiu na última VEJA:

Um exemplo de reação contra o extremismo de Dawkins é esta página (coloco aqui, mesmo não sendo católico, por que acho que a lógica do autor está correta). Afinal, quero ter a liberdade de contar história do Papai Noel para o meus filhos no Natal, talvez assistir Expresso Polar, sem que Dawkins e outros chatos (chatos como as eco-feministas, todos criados no Puritanismo Inglês, suponho - Dawkins era Anglicano...) queiram me processar por pedofilia mental...

RICHARD DAWKINS WORLD
By Mike Gene

This page is not completely in character for this site. Nevertheless, Prof. Richard Dawkins is such a Big Player[1] in this overall debate that some aspects of his extremism beg for comment. As such, I will use the page to comment on some of Dawkins’ extremism and update it accordingly (so you might want to check back periodically).


4-15-05

Back in October of 2002, Richard Dawkins wrote a short essay for The Dubliner entitled, “The God Shaped Hole”. In this essay, Dawkins actually compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues the former is worse:

Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience. I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. [9]

I think it clear that this is raw anti-religious bigotry. We can ignore the letter from “a woman in America” as a) we have no idea whether her account is valid and b) even if valid, it is an anecdote. Since Dawkins is a drum-banger for science, surely he would recognize science would need much more than a vague anecdote to support this contention.

So let’s think through on Dawkins’ logic. First, where is the science? What scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where is the evidence of this “grievous mental harm” in bringing up the child Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?!

Secondly, it is ironic that Dawkins has the science backwards. There are plenty of studies to show that sexual molestation of a child can have long term, negative effects. Dismissing it as “a bit of fondling” and being “mental damage anyway” is insulting to the many victims of child molestation. And there are plenty of studies that also show that religious belief and convictions, if held seriously, provide a net positive benefit in terms of psychological and physical health. In other words, contrary to the views of Dawkins, being raised a Catholic is not worse than being sexually abused.

But let’s follow through with this example of Dawkins Think. As it stands, it is illegal to sexually molest a child. And, of course, it is not illegal to raise your child as a Catholic. But if it is really more harmful to raise your child as a Catholic than to sexually molest your child, as Dawkins believes, society needs to adjust its laws. According to Dawkins’ logic, we should a) either make it illegal to raise your child as a Catholic, as it is worse than pedophilia, or b) legalize pedophilia, since it is not as bad as the legal activity of teaching a child about Hell and Catholicism. Which option would Dawkins choose? It’s his logic, thus his choice to clarify.

Consider a simple analogy. The house next to your house goes up for sale. Two families are interested in buy it. The first family is a devout Catholic family. The father is hard working and has broken no laws. But he has taught his kids to believe in Catholic doctrine, including belief in Hell. The second family is not religious. The father is also hard working, but he also sexually molests his kids. In Dawkins World, you hope the child molester moves in next door, as he is not as bad as the Catholic man.

Citação interessante:

Speciesism and Vegetarianism
...what I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven’t yet produced to break out of that. It’s a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery.
In reply to a question from Peter Singer author of Animal Liberation during an interview on Point of Inquiry