# Atheist Upbringing Devalues the Child Argument
## Intro
Richard Dawkins says that raising a child in a religion can be a kind of child abuse. His reason is not bruises. It is what a teaching does to a child's mind. He has said the fear of hell can harm a child more than some kinds of physical abuse.
This page takes his test and applies it fairly, to both sides.
Picture what a child hears if a parent teaches the naturalist picture all the way through. *You are a cosmic accident. You are chemicals, a kind of "chemical milkshake," and nothing more. You have no soul. There is no purpose to your life. Your choices are not really yours. When you die, you are gone, and so is everyone you love.* By Dawkins's own standard, ask what that message does to a child's mind. It tells the child they do not really matter.
Be clear about what this page does **not** say. It does not say atheist parents abuse their children. Most atheist parents love their children deeply and treat them as precious. The point is that when they do, they are treating the child as more than their worldview says the child is. The love is real. The worldview cannot account for it.
Research on children points the same way. Children do better when they believe they matter, when they have a sense of purpose, and when they are treated as persons rather than objects. The Christian message gives a child all three: *you were made on purpose, in God's image, known by name, and loved.*
## In full
The argument is a **reductio of an uneven standard**. Dawkins (*The God Delusion*, 2006, ch. 9, "Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion") defines a form of child abuse by its psychological effect: teaching a child a frightening or degrading picture of reality harms the child's mind. In a December 2012 Al Jazeera interview with Mehdi Hasan he defended the claim that a Catholic upbringing can do more lasting harm than some sexual abuse, on the strength of one woman's account that the fear of hell troubled her for years.
Grant the standard for the sake of argument. Then it applies to every worldview a parent teaches, including naturalism. The consistent naturalist picture, stated by its own leading spokesmen, tells a child five things: that they are an unintended product of blind processes (Dawkins: a universe of "blind, pitiless indifference"); that they are "nothing but a pack of neurons" (Crick); that their sense of choosing is an illusion (Harris, Sapolsky); that they have no soul and death ends them; and, on at least one prominent naturalist ethic, that a newborn's worth depends on capacities it does not yet have (Singer). Psychological research on **dehumanization** (Haslam, 2006), **mattering** (Rosenberg and McCullough, 1981; Flett, 2018) and **purpose** (Damon, 2008) identifies exactly these messages, being treated as an object, believing one does not matter, and lacking purpose, as harmful to the young.
The conclusion is deliberately limited. It is **not** that atheist parents abuse their children; criminal abuse is a matter of what a person does, and atheist parents are no more abusers than anyone else. It is that **Dawkins's standard, applied evenly, condemns the consistent naturalist message more severely than the religious message he targets**, and that the outcome data (see [Faith-Based Parenting](/codex/faith-based-parenting/)) run against his charge rather than for it. Either the standard is withdrawn, in which case the charge against religious parents falls, or it is kept, in which case naturalism has the larger problem. Polemical on the position, tender on the person.
## Argument structure
| # | Premise |
|---|---|
| **P1** | Dawkins's charge defines psychological child abuse by the harm a taught picture of reality does to a child's mind, not by physical acts. |
| **P2** | A fair standard applies to every worldview a parent teaches, including naturalism. |
| **P3** | The consistent naturalist message, in its own spokesmen's words, tells a child they are an accident, a chemical machine, without a soul, without real choice and without ultimate purpose. |
| **P4** | Research on dehumanization, mattering and purpose identifies being treated as an object, believing one does not matter, and lacking purpose as harmful to young people. |
| **P5** | The Christian message tells a child the opposite: made on purpose, in God's image, known, valued and loved. The outcome data on religious upbringing run against Dawkins's charge. |
| **C** | **Therefore Dawkins's standard, applied evenly, weighs more heavily against the consistent naturalist message than against the religious one. The charge that religious upbringing is child abuse fails on its own terms, while atheist parents who cherish their children are living on a dignity their worldview cannot ground.** |
## Form
**A reductio of an uneven standard, supported by scenarios and data.** P1 and P2 fix the standard and require it to be applied evenly. P3 is documentary: the naturalist message is quoted from its own advocates, not invented. P4 is empirical and correlational, and is stated with its limits. P5 contrasts the two messages and points to the outcome data. Soundness is **contested**: the empirical premises are correlational, some experimental findings have replicated poorly (noted where cited), and the argument concerns the consistent message of a worldview, not the conduct of any particular parent.
## Cheatsheet
**The 30-second reply (read aloud).** Dawkins says teaching a child about hell is a kind of abuse, because of what it does to the child's mind. Fine, let's use that test, on both sides. What does it do to a child's mind to be told: you're an accident, you're just chemicals, you have no soul, your choices aren't really yours, your life has no ultimate point, and when Grandma died she just stopped existing? Psychologists who study this say kids suffer when they're treated like objects, when they believe they don't matter, and when they have no purpose. Try it at bedtime: instead of "I love you," say "chemicals are firing in my brain toward a bag of atoms that carries my genes." Nobody says that to their kid, because everybody knows it isn't the truth about their kid. I'm not saying atheist parents are abusers. Most of them love their kids like crazy. I'm saying when they do, they're treating their kids as more than their worldview says they are. Christianity tells a child, *you were made on purpose and you matter forever.* Which message passes Dawkins's own test?
**The 5 fast facts:**
1. **The charge.** Dawkins, *The God Delusion* (2006), ch. 9, and a December 2012 Al Jazeera interview: a religious upbringing can do more lasting mental harm than some sexual abuse.
2. **The naturalist message in its own words.** Crick: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons" (*The Astonishing Hypothesis*, 1994). Dawkins: "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" (*River Out of Eden*, 1995). Harris: free will is an illusion (*Free Will*, 2012).
3. **Dehumanization.** Haslam (2006) identifies "mechanistic" dehumanization, seeing a person as an object or automaton, as a distinct and damaging form.
4. **Mattering.** Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) found that adolescents' sense of mattering to their parents predicted depression even after self-esteem was accounted for.
5. **Outcomes.** Weekly religious attendance in adolescence was followed by greater life satisfaction and fewer depressive symptoms, less drug use and fewer STIs in young adulthood (Chen and VanderWeele, 2018); frequent attendance was associated with a roughly fivefold lower suicide rate among women (VanderWeele et al., 2016).
**The 3 strongest counter-moves:**
- *"Does your standard apply to every worldview, or only to religious ones?"* If only to religion, it is not a standard about children's minds. It is a standard about religion.
- *"What does your worldview tell a child about why they matter?"* Ask for the answer the naturalism itself supplies, not the answer a loving parent supplies.
- *"Would you say Crick's sentence to your seven-year-old?"* If not, why not, if it is true and harmless?
**Reciprocal concessions (grant the small point, then collect a bigger one):**
- *Grant:* some religious upbringings are harsh, fear-driven or abusive, and that is wrong. *Now collect:* then you agree the question is what a teaching does to a child, and that question has to be asked of the naturalist message too.
- *Grant:* most atheist parents love their children and tell them they matter. *Now collect:* then on that point they are teaching something their worldview cannot ground, and the Christian can ground it.
- *Grant:* the outcome data are correlational. *Now collect:* then they cannot support the claim that religious upbringing is harmful either, and that claim was the one Dawkins made.
**The closing line.** Dawkins says a child's mind deserves protection. We agree. No parent will tuck a child in with "your atoms are statistically unremarkable." We tell our children the truth Jesus told instead: *ye are of more value than many sparrows.*
## P1, Dawkins's standard is about the mind, not the body
### Affirmative case
1. **The charge.** In *The God Delusion* (2006), ch. 9, Dawkins argues that labelling children by their parents' religion and teaching them its doctrines, especially hell, can amount to a form of mental abuse.
2. **The 2012 interview.** On Al Jazeera, asked by Mehdi Hasan to defend his claim that a Catholic upbringing can be worse than abuse by a priest, Dawkins told of a woman abused at seven by a priest whose greater lasting fear came from being told that a friend was going to hell. He said the long-term psychological damage of the upbringing could exceed that of the abuse.
3. **What the standard measures.** On this view the test is the effect of a taught picture of reality on a child's sense of self and safety. It is not a physical test.
### Anticipated objections
1. *"Dawkins was talking about fear of hell, not about worldviews in general."*
2. *"You are trivializing real abuse by using the word this way."*
### Rebuttals
1. **Fear of hell is his example, not his principle.** The principle is that teaching can injure a mind. A principle cannot be applied to one worldview and switched off for another.
2. **Agreed, and that is the point.** It was Dawkins who stretched "abuse" to cover teaching. This page refuses that stretch for criminal abuse, which is about what a person does to a child. It uses his stretched sense only to show that his own standard, applied evenly, cuts against him.
## P2, A fair standard applies to every worldview
### Affirmative case
1. **Every parent teaches a worldview.** No child is raised in a vacuum. Silence on ultimate questions is itself a lesson, and most parents answer the questions children actually ask: *Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where did Grandma go?*
2. **Even application is a basic test of fairness.** A rule that condemns only the views one dislikes is special pleading (see [Tu Quoque](/codex/tu-quoque/) for why "you too" is not a dodge when the point is consistency).
### Anticipated objections
1. *"Atheism isn't a worldview; it's just the absence of belief in God."*
2. *"Naturalism is simply true, so teaching it can't be abuse."*
### Rebuttals
1. **The answers a child receives are a worldview.** A parent who answers a child's ultimate questions without God is teaching naturalism, whatever the label. See [Atheism is a Belief](/codex/atheism-is-a-belief/).
2. **Then truth, not harm, is the real test, and the charge collapses.** If a true teaching cannot be abuse however hard it lands, then a religious parent who believes Christianity is true is not abusing anyone either. The charge only works if the harm test applies regardless of truth, and then it applies to naturalism too.
## P3, The consistent naturalist message, in its own words
### Affirmative case
1. **An accident.** Dawkins: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" (*River Out of Eden*, 1995, ch. 4).
2. **A machine.** Crick: "'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules," adding that Lewis Carroll's Alice might have put it, "You're nothing but a pack of neurons" (*The Astonishing Hypothesis*, 1994, ch. 1).
3. **No real choice.** Sam Harris argues that free will is an illusion (*Free Will*, 2012). Robert Sapolsky argues that behavior is the outcome of biology and environment over which we had no control, so that no one deserves praise or blame (*Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will*, 2023).
4. **Worth by capacity.** Peter Singer argues that newborns are not yet persons, and writes of a hemophiliac infant that "when the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed" (*Practical Ethics*, 2nd ed., 1993, p. 186, as quoted by critics).
5. **"Chemical milkshake."** This is a popular paraphrase, not a quotation from any of these authors. It is a fair compression of the reductive claim Crick states in full.
### Anticipated objections
1. *"Most atheists don't believe all of that."*
2. *"These are adults' philosophical positions; no parent says them to a child."*
3. *"Singer is one philosopher, not atheism."*
### Rebuttals
1. **Granted, and that is the argument.** Many atheists hold that their children have real worth, real choices and real purpose. The question is whether naturalism supports those beliefs or whether they are borrowed. See [Stealing from God Argument](/codex/stealing-from-god-argument/).
2. **Then the honest naturalist is in a bind.** Either the parent teaches the worldview's consistent picture, which by Dawkins's test is harsh, or the parent teaches the child something warmer than the worldview supports. Both concede the point.
3. **Agreed.** Singer is cited as one prominent naturalist ethic that ranks infants by capacity, not as the view of all atheists. Many atheists reject his conclusions. The question is what in naturalism forbids them. See [Disabled People Cannot Choose God Objection Defeater](/codex/disabled-people-cannot-choose-god-objection-defeater/).
## P4, What the research says harms the young
### Affirmative case
1. **Being treated as an object.** Nick Haslam's integrative review ("Dehumanization: An Integrative Review," *Personality and Social Psychology Review* 10, 2006, 252-264) distinguishes "animalistic" dehumanization from "mechanistic" dehumanization, in which a person is seen as an object or automaton lacking emotional depth and warmth. He argues it is an everyday phenomenon, not only a feature of war.
2. **Believing one does not matter.** Rosenberg and McCullough introduced "mattering", the sense of being important to others (*Research in Community and Mental Health* 2, 1981). Across large adolescent samples, mattering to parents predicted depression even after self-esteem was taken into account, as Gordon Flett summarizes in *The Psychology of Mattering* (Academic Press, 2018).
3. **Lacking purpose.** William Damon's Stanford research on about 1,200 young people aged 12 to 26 found that only about one in five had a fully formed sense of purpose (*The Path to Purpose*, 2008). Damon treats purpose as central to thriving.
4. **Believing choices are illusory.** In experiments, reading arguments against free will was followed by more cheating (Vohs and Schooler, *Psychological Science* 19, 2008) and by less helping and more aggression (Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall, *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin* 35, 2009). Both findings have replicated poorly or with mixed results, and they are cited here as suggestive, not settled.
5. **Spiritual importance as protection.** Among adults at high familial risk of depression, those who rated religion or spirituality as highly important had thicker cortex in regions where thinning marks depression risk (Miller et al., *JAMA Psychiatry* 71, 2014). The authors note the finding is correlational.
### Anticipated objections
1. *"None of these studies tested atheist parenting."*
2. *"Correlation is not causation."*
3. *"The free-will studies failed to replicate."*
### Rebuttals
1. **Correct, and the page does not claim they did.** They test the *ingredients*: being treated as an object, believing one does not matter, lacking purpose. The argument is that the consistent naturalist message supplies those ingredients, not that atheist families score worse.
2. **Granted, and it cuts both ways.** If correlation cannot show that religious upbringing helps, it cannot show that it harms, which is what Dawkins claimed. See [Faith-Based Parenting](/codex/faith-based-parenting/) for the controls VanderWeele's studies use.
3. **Agreed, and the page says so.** Drop them entirely and the argument stands on P1 to P3 and on the dehumanization and mattering research.
## P5, The Christian message tells a child the opposite
### Affirmative case
1. **Made on purpose, in God's image.**
> And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ([Genesis 1:27](/codex/genesis-1-27/), ASV)
2. **Known before birth.**
> For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. ([Psalm 139:13-14](/codex/psalms-139-13-14/), ASV)
3. **Valued by name.**
> Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father: but the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. ([Matthew 10:29-31](/codex/matthew-10-29-31/), ASV)
4. **Protected by Jesus.**
> See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. ([Matthew 18:10](/codex/matthew-18-10/), ASV)
> Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God. ([Mark 10:14](/codex/mark-10-14/), ASV)
5. **The outcome data.** Adolescents who attended services weekly reported greater life satisfaction and had fewer depressive symptoms, less illicit drug use and fewer sexually transmitted infections in young adulthood (Chen and VanderWeele, *American Journal of Epidemiology* 187, 2018). Among about 89,700 women, weekly attendance was associated with a roughly fivefold lower suicide rate than never attending (VanderWeele et al., *JAMA Psychiatry* 73, 2016). Both are observational, with confounders controlled. See [Faith-Based Parenting](/codex/faith-based-parenting/).
### Anticipated objections
1. *"Christianity also tells children they are sinners and may go to hell."*
2. *"Comforting stories aren't a reason to believe something."*
### Rebuttals
1. **Yes, and it tells them why they are worth saving.** The doctrine of sin presupposes a creature of great worth who has gone wrong; nobody calls a rock a sinner. The same message says God loved them enough to die for them. Harsh or fear-driven teaching of hell is a real failure, and Christians should own it. See [Hell and Eternal Punishment](/codex/hell-and-eternal-punishment/).
2. **Agreed.** This page does not argue that Christianity is true because it comforts. It argues that the abuse charge is uneven. The case for truth is made on other grounds, such as [Resurrection of Jesus](/codex/resurrection-of-jesus/) and [Moral Argument](/codex/moral-argument/).
## Scenarios: what a child hears
Each scenario sets out a message, what a child plainly takes from it, and the Christian counter-message. None describes what any particular atheist parent says. Each states what the consistent naturalist picture implies when a child asks.
1. **"You were an accident."**
- *The message:* the universe did not intend you; you are a lucky arrangement of matter.
- *What a child hears:* nobody meant for me to be here.
- *The counter-message:* "Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written" ([Psalm 139:16](/codex/psalms-139-16/), ASV). You were intended.
2. **"Love is just chemicals."**
- *The message:* what you feel for your mother, and she for you, is oxytocin and dopamine.
- *What a child hears:* nobody really loves me; my body is just reacting.
- *The counter-message:* love is real and comes from God, who is love ([1 John 4:8](/codex/1-john-4-8/)). See [Love Is Just Chemicals Objection Defeater](/codex/love-is-just-chemicals-objection-defeater/).
3. **"You don't have a soul."**
- *The message:* you are your brain, and nothing more.
- *What a child hears:* there is no real "me" in here.
- *The counter-message:* "Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" ([Genesis 2:7](/codex/genesis-2-7/), ASV).
4. **"There's no ultimate purpose."**
- *The message:* life has no meaning except what you decide.
- *What a child hears:* nothing I do really counts.
- *The counter-message:* you were made for God and for good works prepared for you. See [I Create My Own Meaning Objection Defeater](/codex/i-create-my-own-meaning-objection-defeater/).
5. **"You don't really choose."**
- *The message:* your choices are caused by your brain and upbringing; free will is an illusion.
- *What a child hears:* trying is pointless, and nothing I do is really mine.
- *The counter-message:* "I have set before thee life and death... therefore choose life" ([Deuteronomy 30:19](/codex/deuteronomy-30-19/), ASV). See [Free Will and Determinism](/codex/free-will-and-determinism/).
6. **"Humans are just animals."**
- *The message:* you differ from other animals only in degree.
- *What a child hears:* I'm no more special than the dog.
- *The counter-message:* "Thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor" ([Psalm 8:5](/codex/psalms-8-5/), ASV). See [Imago Dei](/codex/imago-dei/).
7. **The grieving child: "Grandma is just gone."**
- *The message:* death is the end of a person.
- *What a child hears:* everyone I love will disappear forever, and so will I.
- *The counter-message:* "that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope" ([1 Thessalonians 4:13](/codex/1-thessalonians-4-13/), ASV). Grief with hope.
8. **The child who asks, "Do I matter?"**
- *The message:* you matter to us, but the universe is indifferent to you.
- *What a child hears:* I matter only as long as someone happens to care.
- *The counter-message:* "the very hairs of your head are all numbered" ([Matthew 10:30](/codex/matthew-10-30/), ASV). You matter to the One who made everything.
9. **The disabled child under a utility ethic.**
- *The message:* worth depends on capacities and on the happiness a life adds to the total.
- *What a child hears:* if I can't do what others do, my life is worth less.
- *The counter-message:* worth is given by God, not earned by ability. "See that ye despise not one of these little ones" ([Matthew 18:10](/codex/matthew-18-10/), ASV). See [Disabled People Cannot Choose God Objection Defeater](/codex/disabled-people-cannot-choose-god-objection-defeater/).
## The translation test: say what it means
Take the ordinary things every loving parent says to a child. Now replace each key word with what it means on the consistent naturalist picture. The translations are a little comic on purpose. They are also a serious test.
| What the parent says | What it means if naturalism is the whole story |
|---|---|
| "I love you." | "Dopamine and oxytocin are firing in my brain toward a configuration of atoms that carries half my genes." |
| "You're special." | "You are a statistically unremarkable arrangement of matter, one of about eight billion." |
| "You matter." | "You have no significance beyond the feelings some other arrangements of matter happen to have about you, for now." |
| "I'm proud of you." | "Your behavior just triggered a neurochemical reward signal in me." |
| "Grandma is in a better place." | "Grandma's atoms are dispersing. There is no Grandma anywhere." |
| "You can be anything you choose." | "You will become whatever prior physical states determine. The choosing is an illusion." |
| "That was wrong of you." | "You did something our species evolved to disapprove of." |
| "You were meant to be here." | "You are the improbable result of blind processes that did not have you in mind." |
**What the test shows.** No loving parent says the right-hand column to a child, atheist parents included. The reason is not that the left-hand column is a comforting lie. It is that every parent who looks at their own child knows the right-hand column is not the truth about that child. A child is not a configuration of atoms that carries genes. A child is someone.
This is the Dawkins turnaround in miniature. If the measure of a teaching is what it does to a child's mind (P1 and P2), the right-hand column fails the measure, and the left-hand column is true only if the child is more than matter. Christianity says the left-hand column is literally true. "I love you" means love, because "God is love" ([1 John 4:8](/codex/1-john-4-8/)). "You matter" means mattering, because the child bears God's image ([Genesis 1:27](/codex/genesis-1-27/)). "That was wrong" means wrong, because there is a moral law and a Lawgiver. "Grandma is in a better place" can be said with hope ([1 Thessalonians 4:13](/codex/1-thessalonians-4-13/)).
The honesty constraint still holds. Atheist parents say the left-hand column, and mean it, and they are right to. The test is not about them. It is about whether the worldview can let the words mean what the parent means by them. For the first line in particular, see [Love Is Just Chemicals Objection Defeater](/codex/love-is-just-chemicals-objection-defeater/).
## Master objections
1. **"You're accusing atheist parents of abuse."** No. The page says the opposite in its Intro and conclusion. It accuses a standard of being applied unevenly.
2. **"I give my kids meaning, love and choice."** Good; keep doing it. The question is not whether you give it but whether your worldview grounds it. See [Argument from the Unlivability of Nihilism](/codex/argument-from-the-unlivability-of-nihilism/).
3. **"Religious parents scare children with hell."** Some do, and that should be confronted. But the charge was that religious upbringing as such is abusive, and the outcome data do not support that.
4. **"This is an appeal to consequences."** Only if it claimed Christianity is true because it is comforting. It claims something narrower: Dawkins's harm test cannot be applied to one worldview alone.
## Cross-examination
### Round 1, Fix the standard
- *Q:* What makes teaching about hell abusive, in your view?
- *Expected:* "The fear and harm it causes a child's mind."
- *Follow-up:* So the test is the effect on the child's mind, not whether a crime was committed?
### Round 2, Apply it evenly
- *Q:* Does that test apply to every worldview a parent teaches?
- *If yes:* then let's apply it to telling a child they are an accident with no soul and no real choices.
- *If no:* then it is not a test about children. It is a test about religion.
### Round 3, The naturalist answers
- *Q:* On naturalism, what is the true answer to a child who asks "Why do I matter?"
- *Follow-up:* Is that answer more comforting, or less, than "God made you and loves you"?
### Round 4, The data
- *Q:* If religious upbringing were abusive, what would you expect the outcome studies to show?
- *Follow-up:* Chen and VanderWeele (2018) found the opposite pattern. What is your evidence of harm?
### Dodge table
| Dodge | Reply |
|---|---|
| "Atheism is just a lack of belief." | The answers you give a child about why they exist are a worldview. |
| "Naturalism is true, so it can't be abuse." | Then truth, not harm, is the test, and a sincere Christian parent is not an abuser either. |
| "I'd never tell my kid that." | Then you are teaching them more than your worldview supports. That is the point. |
| "Religion does worse things." | Some religious people do. The charge was about religious upbringing as such, and the data do not support it. |
| "Correlation isn't causation." | Agreed. Then you cannot claim religious upbringing causes harm either. |
## Live-cite kit
**Scripture (ASV):** [Genesis 1:27](/codex/genesis-1-27/); [Genesis 2:7](/codex/genesis-2-7/); [Psalm 8:4-5](/codex/psalms-8-4-5/); [Psalm 139:13-16](/codex/psalms-139-13-16/); [Matthew 10:29-31](/codex/matthew-10-29-31/); [Matthew 18:10](/codex/matthew-18-10/); [Mark 10:14](/codex/mark-10-14/); [1 Thessalonians 4:13](/codex/1-thessalonians-4-13/).
**The charge:** Dawkins, *The God Delusion* (2006), ch. 9; Al Jazeera interview with Mehdi Hasan, December 2012.
**The naturalist message:** Crick, *The Astonishing Hypothesis* (1994), ch. 1; Dawkins, *River Out of Eden* (1995), ch. 4; Harris, *Free Will* (2012); Sapolsky, *Determined* (2023); Singer, *Practical Ethics* (2nd ed., 1993), p. 186.
**Research:** Haslam (2006); Rosenberg and McCullough (1981); Flett (2018); Damon (2008); Chen and VanderWeele (2018); VanderWeele, Li, Tsai and Kawachi (2016); Miller et al. (2014); Vohs and Schooler (2008) and Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall (2009), both with mixed replication.
**Aphorism:** "If teaching can wound a child's mind, ask which teaching tells the child they matter."
**Aphorism:** "Atheist parents who cherish their children are right. Their worldview just can't tell them why."
## Connection to Scripture
- [Genesis 1:27](/codex/genesis-1-27/), the image of God, the ground of every child's dignity.
- [Psalm 139:13-16](/codex/psalms-139-13-16/), formed and known before birth.
- [Matthew 10:29-31](/codex/matthew-10-29-31/), more value than many sparrows.
- [Matthew 18:10](/codex/matthew-18-10/), do not despise the little ones.
- [Mark 10:14](/codex/mark-10-14/), Jesus welcomes children.
## Scholarship
Published academic works this page draws on, each matched to a publisher, index or library catalog record.
- Roy F. Baumeister, E.J. Masicampo and C. Nathan DeWall, "Prosocial Benefits of Feeling Free: Disbelief in Free Will Increases Aggression and Reduces Helpfulness," *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin* 35 (2009). [doi:10.1177/0146167208327217](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327217) [PubMed 19141628](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19141628/)
- Ying Chen and Tyler J VanderWeele, "Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis," *American Journal of Epidemiology* 187 (2018). [doi:10.1093/aje/kwy142](https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy142) [PubMed 30215663](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30215663/)
- Francis Crick, *The astonishing hypothesis* (1993). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL3948850W)
- William Damon, *The Path to Purpose* (2008). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2685306W)
- Richard Dawkins, *River out of Eden: a Darwinian view of life* (1995). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1966506W)
- Sam Harris, *Free will* (Free Press, 2012). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL16451681W)
- Nick Haslam, "Dehumanization: An Integrative Review," *Personality and Social Psychology Review* 10 (2006). [doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003\_4](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4) [PubMed 16859440](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16859440/)
- Lisa Miller et al., "Neuroanatomical Correlates of Religiosity and Spirituality: A Study in Adults at High and Low Familial Risk for Depression," *JAMA Psychiatry* 71 (2014). [doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.3067](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.3067) [PubMed 24369341](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24369341/) [open access](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3921896)
- Robert M. Sapolsky, *Determined* (2023). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL34336493W)
- Peter Singer, *Practical ethics* (Cambridge University Press, 1993). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL18412733W)
- Kathleen D. Vohs and Jonathan W. Schooler, "The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating," *Psychological Science* 19 (2008). [doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x) [PubMed 18181791](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18181791/)
## See also
- [Faith-Based Parenting](/codex/faith-based-parenting/), the outcome data on religious upbringing and the Dawkins charge.
- [Spare the Rod Objection Defeater](/codex/spare-the-rod-objection-defeater/), the companion charge that the Bible commands abuse.
- [Imago Dei](/codex/imago-dei/) and [Biblical Dignity](/codex/biblical-dignity/), why every child bears infinite worth.
- [I Create My Own Meaning Objection Defeater](/codex/i-create-my-own-meaning-objection-defeater/), whether self-made meaning can carry a child.
- [Love Is Just Chemicals Objection Defeater](/codex/love-is-just-chemicals-objection-defeater/), the reductive account of love.
- [Consciousness Emerges from Neurons Objection Defeater](/codex/consciousness-emerges-from-neurons-objection-defeater/), the "pack of neurons" picture.
- [Free Will and Determinism](/codex/free-will-and-determinism/), the free-will debate.
- [Disabled People Cannot Choose God Objection Defeater](/codex/disabled-people-cannot-choose-god-objection-defeater/), worth that does not depend on ability.
- [Stealing from God Argument](/codex/stealing-from-god-argument/), goods the atheist uses but cannot ground.
- [Richard Dawkins](/codex/richard-dawkins/), [Francis Crick](/codex/francis-crick/) and [Sam Harris](/codex/sam-harris/), the voices quoted.
- [Atheism](/codex/atheism/), the master hub.
## Common questions this page answers
**Q: Does atheism lead to child abuse?**
Not in the criminal sense, and atheist parents are not abusers as a group; most love their children deeply. The argument is narrower. Richard Dawkins called religious upbringing a kind of abuse because of what it teaches a child's mind. Applied evenly, that same test weighs more heavily against telling a child they are an accident with no soul, no real choice and no purpose.
**Q: Is it harmful to teach a child they are just chemicals or a cosmic accident?**
Psychology finds that young people suffer when they are treated as objects, believe they do not matter, or lack purpose (Haslam 2006; Rosenberg and McCullough 1981; Damon 2008). The reductive message carries all three. Many atheist parents soften it, which is the point: they teach their children more worth than naturalism supplies.
**Q: Did Richard Dawkins say religious upbringing is child abuse?**
Yes. In *The God Delusion* (2006), ch. 9, and in a December 2012 Al Jazeera interview, he argued that a religious upbringing, especially fear of hell, can do more lasting mental harm than some sexual abuse. Outcome studies such as Chen and VanderWeele (2018) do not support the charge.
**Q: Is it wrong for an atheist parent to tell their child they matter?**
No, it is right. Every child matters. The question is whether naturalism can explain why. Christianity can: every child is made in God's image and loved by name ([Genesis 1:27](/codex/genesis-1-27/); [Matthew 10:29-31](/codex/matthew-10-29-31/)).
**Q: Don't Christians harm children by teaching about hell?**
Fear-driven teaching can harm and should be corrected. But the Christian message about sin comes with the message of a child's great worth and God's love, and the outcome data on religious upbringing are positive on average, not negative.
**Q: What does the Bible say about the value of children?**
That children bear God's image, are known before birth ([Psalm 139:13-16](/codex/psalms-139-13-16/)), are worth more than many sparrows ([Matthew 10:31](/codex/matthew-10-31/)), must not be despised ([Matthew 18:10](/codex/matthew-18-10/)), and are welcomed by Jesus into the kingdom ([Mark 10:14](/codex/mark-10-14/)).