Religious instruction is child abuse

[Piscivore]

Well, I already gave my definition of indoctrinate, which I think is the most common one. If you really think it's helpful, I'll substitute that definition in place of the word 'indoctrination' in each instance from now on.

I think it would, yes.

Ah, but what counts as a 'hit' and what doesn't? There is no clear cut, objective way to determine this as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong.

One compares the action under consideration with the defintion of "hit" one is using. Are you really claiming there is no way to objectively determine if "to deal a blow or stroke to" has happened or not?

And it is something like this what you demand evidence for.

Yes. What is wrong with requesting a coherent, consistent defintion of an event someone claims has happened and evidence it actually has happened? Isn't that what skepticism and critical thinking are about?

I say that teaching your children to accept your bible without question under implied or direct threat of eternal torment could be seen as child abuse. I see no way to back this up with evidence.

Then why do you say it?

Reason.

It's the philosopher's primary instrument.

And reason alone never comes up with a wrong answer? Which is more reliable, pure reason or empirical evidence?

I find your position on this very strange. Are you honestly claiming that parents teaching children to accept ideas uncritically under threat of hellfire will not have any significant effect on that child's reasoning capacity?

I've seen evidence otherwise, yes. Including Complexity himself.

If teachings as extreme as that wouldn't have any effect,

That's not what I said either. I said that the evidence seems to indicate that increased CT skill lessens the effect.

You cannot make that conclusion.

I think you'll find that I did, in fact.

Your argument goes as follows:

1) There are people with religious education and basic critical thinking skills who reject their teachings
2) People who do not think critically tend to fall victim to woo
3) Therefore, it is lack of critical thinking and not religion that is the (main) problem.

That's not quite it.

P1) People with critical thinking skills exposed to religions teachings and other non-evidenced based ideas have been observed rejecting these ideas where people with lesser or no CT skills do not.
P2) People with limited or no critical thinking skills exposed to religions teachings and other non-evidenced based ideas have been observed to later develop CT skills.
C) Exposure to religions teachings and other non-evidenced based ideas do not inherently diminish or prevent the development of CT skills.

And even if 3) were true it would not disprove my statement that religion significantly contributes to a lack of critical thinking.

No, it's the lack of evidence that does that.

Still completely wrong. There is nothing in the statement "religious education causes a lack of critical thinking skills" that says that it prevents ANYONE from thinking critically if they have been subject to it. It's a common rule that there are exceptions to everything and frankly I don't understand why you would pretend that we hold such a rediculous position when we clearly don't.

So sorry, I didn't realise the statment included an unwritten "...except when it doesn't" clause.

So the predictive power of this belief is essentially zero, then? "Religious education might cause a lack of critical thinking skills, it might not, who knows" is more accurate?

I guess I forgot to inform you that I end all of my statements with a silent BOCTAOE.

???

ETA: Googled it. How many "obvious exceptions" must an idea rack up under this concept before it's admitted to just not be correct?

Technically true. However, it is implied that the first part (the conditional part) is true.

Compare with: "If you are so smart, how come you believe in X?"

What's annoying is what's implied.

I implied nothing. The question is one I ask myself every day. The day I get a good answer I'll rethink my skepticism.

Right. It's the equivalent of a religious person asking an atheist "Why have faith in atheism?".

That's a good question. It opens the door for one to explain the evidence for why one embraces atheism. I've already invited you through that door with regards to your assertion about religious education.

 

[Sophronius]

One compares the action under consideration with the defintion of "hit" one is using. Are you really claiming there is no way to objectively determine if "to deal a blow or stroke to" has happened or not?

No, I am saying that there is no easy way to determine if something counts as a slap, a stroke, a hit, a tick, etc. This requires judgement calls.

Yes. What is wrong with requesting a coherent, consistent defintion of an event someone claims has happened and evidence it actually has happened? Isn't that what skepticism and critical thinking are about?

Still not certain exactly what you are requesting evidence for. I already have provided a definition for indoctrination. I could also provide a definition for child abuse and argue if it applies if that's what you want.

If you want evidence that a significant amount of religious fundamentalists teach children the contents of their holy book, I suppose I could search for evidence to back this up (very difficult though, since you won't accept as evidence their own testimony and it is invasion of their privacy to observe them in their homes as they raise their children), but the whole thing seems silly to me since I have difficulty believing that you really doubt this. I get the feeling you are just being intentionally difficult about the whole thing.

Then why do you say it?

Because it does not require it.

You are trying to enforce scientific principles where they are not appropriate or helpful. Philosophy and science are two seperate techniques, both of which are adequate for finding truth.

And reason alone never comes up with a wrong answer?

Perfect reason given perfect information never comes up with a wrong answer.

I do not see why you are arguing this strawman though. What is your obsession with absolutes?

Which is more reliable, pure reason or empirical evidence?

Depends on the situation at hand. It is never a good idea to reject either in its entirety in favour of the other.

I've seen evidence otherwise, yes. Including Complexity himself.

One or several individuals is not a representative sample of a population of millions. Also, you are hand picking examples that support your position out of said population, which makes it completely inadmissible as evidence.

For someone who is so bent on evidence, you should know better.

I think you'll find that I did, in fact

More immaturity.

That's not quite it.

P1) People with critical thinking skills exposed to religions teachings and other non-evidenced based ideas have been observed rejecting these ideas where people with lesser or no CT skills do not.
P2) People with limited or no critical thinking skills exposed to religions teachings and other non-evidenced based ideas have been observed to later develop CT skills.
C) Exposure to religions teachings and other non-evidenced based ideas do not inherently diminish or prevent the development of CT skills.

Still completely wrong. C does not follow from P1 and P2.

P1) Proves, if accepted, that CT helps to reject religion.
P2) Proves, if accepted, that it is possible to develp CT skills despite religious teachings
C) Claims that religious teachings do not diminish the development of CT skills.

If you were to remove the "diminish" in C and leave in "completely prevent" it would be logically sound. However, it would then fail to prove your argument.

No, it's the lack of evidence that does that.

A lack of evidence does not "disprove" anything. (other than evidence having been presented)

If you want to disprove my position, you will have to try harder than that. Pointing out a logical falacy would do the trick.

So sorry, I didn't realise the statment included an unwritten "...except when it doesn't" clause.

More immaturity.

So the predictive power of this belief is essentially zero, then? "Religious education might cause a lack of critical thinking skills, it might not, who knows" is more accurate?

There is a distinct different between a judgement call and a scientific theory.

One has predictive power. The other one doesn't. (And is not supposed to)

No, this does not prove that judgement calls are useless and should never be made.

ETA: Googled it. How many "obvious exceptions" must an idea rack up under this concept before it's admitted to just not be correct?

A statistically significant amount.

I implied nothing. The question is one I ask myself every day. The day I get a good answer I'll rethink my skepticism.

OK, I'll explain it to you.

If you say "Why have faith in your position?" in the middle of a discussion, you are abandoning reasonable debate in favour of attacking the person arguing with you. You are saying that the other person is not trying to be reasonable, and as such that arguing with them is pointless. This is not constructive.

That's a good question. It opens the door for one to explain the evidence for why one embraces atheism. I've already invited you through that door with regards to your assertion about religious education.

No. The question is clearly meant to be provocative. Atheism is not based on faith, it is simply the absence of religion. Asserting that the other person's views are simply based on faith when this is clearly not the case is just an attempt to provoke the other person and give oneself the illusion of victory when the other won't answer.

 

[Beth]

Really? It very much surprises me to hear that.

From what I heard of many religious fundamentalists, the whole "believe it or you will go to hell" seemed to me to me to be core to their teachings.

It's not usually put in quite those terms. I grew up in a fundamentalist family. That sort of thinking is implied strongly and I think occasionally preached from the pulpit. I have to admit, I never paid much attention to the sermons as a child. What they said didn't make any sense to me and I generally ignored it and just daydreamed during church.

However, I do recall from Sunday school, that belief alone will not save you from going to hell. God required belief AND repentance AND baptism AND striving to live a life free of sin. Belief was only the first step.

What I am saying is that in the interest of clarity, since we seem to have different conceptions of what connotations the word "indoctrinate" carries, is that we stop using it and substitute another word or phrase that more clearly conveys our meaning instead.

I quite agree with you regarding the emotional content of this argument. Using terms like "indoctrinate" and “child abuse” signal an appeal to emotion. They are highly emotionally charged terms. I associate that particular appeal to emotion, the “think of the children” plea, as a weapon wielded by zealots and crusaders. I have much the same reaction to those who describe spanking or circumcision as “child abuse”.

Generally, zealots and crusaders don’t want to distinguish between extremists, who’s practices can legitimately be classified as child abuse versus moderates, who are simply rearing their children in a way the crusader finds morally objectionable. Rational people, on the other hand, are willing to make that distinction.

That's not important. This isn't a question of "most" or "average". IF religious education objectively causes a lack of critical thinking skills, we should expect to see low or absent critical thinking skill in anyone who has received religious education. That's not what happens.

I don’t think this argument holds. It is possible that religious education that demands acceptance of a literal interpretation of the bible and insists that evolution isn’t a reasonable explanation for life on earth could contribute to a lowering of overall critical thinking skills. Not necessarily in every child, but on average overall. While I think this is possible, even if true I don’t think it necessarily constitutes child abuse any more than choosing to formula feed over breast feeding.

I also have no idea how often the parents do in fact admit that these are their own beliefs and allow for discussion from their children as they get older and more capable of understanding.

In my experience, 100% of fundamentalist parents do just that. However, I wouldn’t say this is true of all fundamentalist parents. I suspect that Rev. Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church was cut from an entirely different cloth. Most parents are doing their best to raise their children well. That includes being honest with their children about their beliefs. Fundamentalists in particular make it quite clear that their beliefs are based in faith not in logic or evidence.

People have been suffering and dying from lots of things all of that time. No one has yet gotten out of this life alive, and precious few have never known pain. So why does just this one thing get your dander up? I'd much rather see poverty and priviledge go before religion, honestly. Those have done far more harm and almost no good.

I nominated this. Great post!

I say that teaching your children to accept your bible without question under implied or direct threat of eternal torment could be seen as child abuse. I see no way to back this up with evidence.

If you want to convince others, such as Piscivore or myself, that the label of ‘child abuse’ is appropriate, you’ll have to provide evidence that the practice is harmful. I would want to see the harm it supposedly causes defined and measured. Then, if the measurements were to support your contention, that would be evidence (not proof, but evidence worth considering) that religious education should be considered abusive. Without defining the harm and measuring it, I consider the claim to be inflammatory rhetoric designed to evoke an emotional response. Which is exactly what Piscivore is saying about it!

Still not certain exactly what you are requesting evidence for. I already have provided a definition for indoctrination. I could also provide a definition for child abuse and argue if it applies if that's what you want.

I want to see of definition and measurement of the 'harm' caused by parents providing a religious education for their children. Defining it as a lack of 'critical thinking skills' is okay, but you still need to provide a measurement of those skills and evidence that religious education has a significant negative impact on the development of those skills.

You are trying to enforce scientific principles where they are not appropriate or helpful. Philosophy and science are two separate techniques, both of which are adequate for finding truth.

This seems a suspiciously convenient belief on your part. I find it a claim much easier to buy into for god than for child abuse.

Perfect reason given perfect information never comes up with a wrong answer.

Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstein ​

Atheism is not based on faith, it is simply the absence of religion. Asserting that the other person's views are simply based on faith when this is clearly not the case is just an attempt to provoke the other person and give oneself the illusion of victory when the other won't answer.

All worldviews are based on faith. Even atheists have to take some things on faith. If you think you don't, you're as delusional any theist. (Please don't be insulted by that. I don't actually think theists are delusional. I find it irritating that their beliefs are described that way. It's an emotional appeal to describe their beliefs that way.)

 

[Complexity]

I remember Beth from two years ago. Not fondly. If I remember correctly, she was a religious zealot back then and tending towards other woo as well. I'd hoped things had changed, but they apparently haven't.

I didn't expect the religious members of this forum to agree with anything I've said and, for the most part, they have not.

Some of them have dismissed my comments as wrong, illogical, and emotional.

So it goes.

I wasn't very good at persuasion when I tried to persuade, and it has been years since persuasion, debate, and argumentation have interested me. In particular, I don't think there is anything to be gained by engaging a superstitious person in a discussion of their beliefs.

I do not think that there is much to be gained from discussion with the already-religious.

I move along and am selective about who I spend time with.

My thanks to several of the posters for their questions and thoughts.

 

[154]

We should not tolerate child abuse. What should be done to these child abusers?

 

[Complexity]

We should not tolerate child abuse. What should be done to these child abusers?

The simplest and most just thing to do would be to cure them of religion.

Unfortunately, no one knows how to do that except for real education, and that takes a great deal of time and doesn't work for everyone.

Also, education can not be coerced and these people are less susceptible to reason and science that the rest of us, so the prospects of successfully helping them shed their superstitions through education are dim.

There are, of course, far more subversive means that can be devised, and I favor exploring these.

 

[Sophronius]

I quite agree with you regarding the emotional content of this argument. Using terms like "indoctrinate" and “child abuse” signal an appeal to emotion. They are highly emotionally charged terms. I associate that particular appeal to emotion, the “think of the children” plea, as a weapon wielded by zealots and crusaders. I have much the same reaction to those who describe spanking or circumcision as “child abuse”.

Generally, zealots and crusaders don’t want to distinguish between extremists, who’s practices can legitimately be classified as child abuse versus moderates, who are simply rearing their children in a way the crusader finds morally objectionable. Rational people, on the other hand, are willing to make that distinction.

Well, I will say this again, more clearly this time. The phrases "child abuse" and "indoctrination" have approximately 0 emotional value in my mind.

If you are going to argue against me, please argue against my arguments, not my choice of words.

I should also note the irony in that by calling people "zealots and crusaders" you are doing the exact thing that you say we shouldn't do. Saying "rational people will agree with me" doesn't help the conversation much, either.

If you want to convince others, such as Piscivore or myself, that the label of ‘child abuse’ is appropriate, you’ll have to provide evidence that the practice is harmful. I would want to see the harm it supposedly causes defined and measured. Then, if the measurements were to support your contention, that would be evidence (not proof, but evidence worth considering) that religious education should be considered abusive.

This seems reasonable. Obviously I don't have time to conduct my own research in this matter, but I could try to find existing studies on the subject to back up my claims when I have some time.

Without defining the harm and measuring it, I consider the claim to be inflammatory rhetoric designed to evoke an emotional response. Which is exactly what Piscivore is saying about it!

Again, it does not matter how you consider it. It should be perfectly clear from my posts that at no point did I appeal to emotions or anything of the sort. Stop arguing against the words I use and argue against the argument instead.

This seems a suspiciously convenient belief on your part. I find it a claim much easier to buy into for god than for child abuse.

Again, completely irrelevant to the argument.

I also don't understand why you two seem to think that Philosophy is some kind of faith.

Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstein ​

Might be true, but this argument is completely irrelevant to the validity of using reason to support your arguments.

All worldviews are based on faith. Even atheists have to take some things on faith. If you think you don't, you're as delusional any theist. (Please don't be insulted by that. I don't actually think theists are delusional. I find it irritating that their beliefs are described that way. It's an emotional appeal to describe their beliefs that way.)

You completely miss the point, again. There is a huge difference between saying that atheists take some things on faith and saying that Atheism IS a faith. Saying "atheism is a faith" is nothing but an attempt to provoke the opponent. I don't see why you do not understand this.

Saying "Theists are delusional" can be provocative as well, but it has a strong basis in evidence. It is not necessarily an appeal to emotion at all.

 

[Aepervius]

The problem I see with religious instruction per see (and to wit I see a similar form of problem with some part of the public instruction system), is that it teach to accept some statement unquestioniably, be those statement logic, rational grounded on fact or not.

I see no problem with teaching religious instruction and converting people which have already been taught to reason rationaly, or at least have had BASIC grounding for it.
But teaching it to young children (I saw it as low as 5years, up to 12/13 for sunday school), at a point of time where they can only accepts what the adult role model tell tham ad-hoc, and potentially stay on those early fundement, is IMHO brainwashing. As I see the world as it is, it seems only a minority of kids see "through" it.

Whether that qualify as child abuse , I would not go that far. But it is certainly IMHO a very dirty trick used by religions at large...

 

[Beth]

This seems reasonable. Obviously I don't have time to conduct my own research in this matter, but I could try to find existing studies on the subject to back up my claims when I have some time.

That would be cool. I have some vague recollection of hearing that the GPA of college students who were creationists was lower than the GPA of those who weren't.

Again, it does not matter how you consider it. It should be perfectly clear from my posts that at no point did I appeal to emotions or anything of the sort. Stop arguing against the words I use and argue against the argument instead.

I think that by choosing to use those emotionally charged words, you are making an appeal to emotion and, like Piscivore, I think it's important to point that out. If you don't want to be accused of that tactic, I suggest you choose a more neutral phrasing.

 

[Sophronius]

That would be cool. I have some vague recollection of hearing that the GPA of college students who were creationists was lower than the GPA of those who weren't.

I have read from studies that religious people have, on average, a lower IQ. However, this does not prove that religious education leads to a lower IQ. The problem is in establishing a causal relationship.

Also, it's not clear at all if teachings that lead to lower IQ should be seen as child abuse because of that. To be honest I would say not.

I think that by choosing to use those emotionally charged words, you are making an appeal to emotion and, like Piscivore, I think it's important to point that out. If you don't want to be accused of that tactic, I suggest you choose a more neutral phrasing.

Hm, I don't really agree. By disallowing me to use certain words it becomes harder for me to explain myself. Especially Piscivore's insistance that I replace "indoctrination" with "education" is completely unfair since while indoctrination has negative connotations, education has very strong positive ones.

I have already agreed to replace "indoctrination" with "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically", but this does make my posts overly wordy and harder to read.

 

[The True Scotsman]

belief systems that you don't agree with. Other belief systems are OK.

No, belief systems that hold large sway over people's lives without providing sufficient evidence for why they should be followed.

It's a fallacy to think that you can have a neutral government not informed by beliefs as to how people should behave and be treated. Singling out particular beliefs doesn't do anything to address this.

Before you go around using the "f" word (fallacy), you may want to at least make sure that the person you are accusing is guilty of said fallacy. When did I ever say it was possible or necessary to have a completely neutral government (including public officials)? Find it and then come back to me.

 

[Helen]

There are many things that parents do to their children that I would call abuse. Raising them to be fundamentalists could very well be among them. But I don't really know how we could stop that.

Because teaching your values to your children is certainly part of good parenting, and something that you do not just by talking to them, but in everything that happens in your life together. I would assume that most parents, including the fundamentalist ones, consider it something they do for the good of their children. That is what I have felt when I have taught them my values, that I have given them something that will improve their lives. And I am, of course, quite convinced that the values I have tried to pass on are good, not to say the best But so would most people be.

It is also something that may give you very great pleasure, I find. When I think of the children who have lived with us, I remember with great joy the discussions we used to have about values and beliefs - some of our best times together!

So while I would love it if no children were taught to be fundamentalists of any variety, I cannot think how it could be done. Part of being a parent is passing on your values. I don't think you can be a parent at all without doing that.

And I have great faith in children! They do tend to question all they are taught at one time or another, and if there is someone around to help them, many of them will rebel against fundamentalist ideas. So perhaps that is what we should concentrate on doing? Here, very few children are home schooled, so most meet all kinds of different sets of values and beliefs in school, and have a chance of forming their own ideas.

But I may be influenced by living in one of the most secular countries in the world. I assume that it is different in a more religious society.

 

[Beth]

I have read from studies that religious people have, on average, a lower IQ. However, this does not prove that religious education leads to a lower IQ. The problem is in establishing a causal relationship.

Also, it's not clear at all if teachings that lead to lower IQ should be seen as child abuse because of that. To be honest I would say not.

I agree with this. However, without such evidence, the claim that religious education is child abuse is nothing more than a belief based on faith. It's why I don't consider religious education in general to be reasonably termed 'child abuse' and argue against such claims.

Hm, I don't really agree. By disallowing me to use certain words it becomes harder for me to explain myself.

No one can disallow you from using certain words. All other people can do is object and argue against such terminology.

Especially Piscivore's insistance that I replace "indoctrination" with "education" is completely unfair since while indoctrination has negative connotations, education has very strong positive ones. I have already agreed to replace "indoctrination" with "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically", but this does make my posts overly wordy and harder to read.

Yes, being more precise does tend to make things more wordy. I have similar problems with other issues.

 

[Monkian1234]

@op

I think that religious instruction is child abuse and should be regarded as such.

I think that it is morally akin to deliberately exposing a child to HIV.

I'm under no illusion that we'll be able to prevent or even reduce religious indoctrination, but I think we need to hold those who do it accountable and never let them forget the damage that they are doing to their own and other people's children.

You know what else we should all do?

We should all teach our children at a very early age that all choices are merely illusions and that every single response we have to everything is just the way that the chemicals in our brains interacted at that particular moment.
We should all teach our kids that whatever food they happen to be eating at the moment was most likely fecal matter at some point and the molecules in that food were probably (at some point) part of a living thing that had maggots crawling all over it soon after it died.
Hey, lets also tell all children that they are not the reason that there parents had children in and of themselves-the parents were just following their biological imperative and had no actual idea that their specific child would happen to be precious to them because of the way they turned out.


Because teaching illusions is bad and wrong! So let's all just sit down with our children and explain all of the horrific truths to them the moment they are capable of understanding them. Sounds good yes, OP?

Make sure the next time you see a kid crying you don't tell them that it will all be okay-instead make sure that they fully understand that they will die someday and when they do it will most likely be in a truly humiliating way and that as soon as they die their corpse will release its bowels (be sure to include the most likely ways they will die as well according to statistics too-this way they can really appreciate the knowledge of their own mortality).


Saying that teaching children about faith or religion is wrong means that telling a child to believe in any type of illusory thing is wrong. Who are you to say which illusion is good and which is bad, after all? Better play it safe and dispel them all.


So stick to your principals, OP, and really let 'em have it next time you see a kid, ok?

 

[Sophronius]

I agree with this. However, without such evidence, the claim that religious education is child abuse is nothing more than a belief based on faith.

No, that means that the claim is nothing more than a claim. Please don't assume too readily that people base their claims on nothing but faith simply because they don't provide hard evidence to back it up.

There is a stark difference between the statements "I believe that Jesus is the only path to paradise" and "I believe that regilious indoctrination could be seen as child abuse."

No one can disallow you from using certain words. All other people can do is object and argue against such terminology.

Of course, I didn't mean "disallow" in the literal sense.

If there are two possible interpretations for what I am saying, and one of them is reasonable while the other is completely nonsensical, please assume it's the first. Give me a little benefit of the doubt.

 

[Beth]

No, that means that the claim is nothing more than a claim. Please don't assume too readily that people base their claims on nothing but faith simply because they don't provide hard evidence to back it up.

There is a stark difference between the statements "I believe that Jesus is the only path to paradise" and "I believe that regilious indoctrination could be seen as child abuse."

I agree, there are major differences between those statements. But, without evidence, I think that both beliefs can accurately be described as based on faith. If you feel that is not an appropriate description for your belief, please explain why.

Of course, I didn't mean "disallow" in the literal sense.

If there are two possible interpretations for what I am saying, and one of them is reasonable while the other is completely nonsensical, please assume it's the first. Give me a little benefit of the doubt.

I generally do. However, in regards to the 'indoctrination' and 'child abuse' terminology, the OP and others posting in this thread clearly feel that those are appropriate rather than nonsensical terms to use. I couldn't assume that you didn't feel similarly.

 

[qayak]

You know what else we should all do?

We should all teach our children at a very early age that all choices are merely illusions and that every single response we have to everything is just the way that the chemicals in our brains interacted at that particular moment.
We should all teach our kids that whatever food they happen to be eating at the moment was most likely fecal matter at some point and the molecules in that food were probably (at some point) part of a living thing that had maggots crawling all over it soon after it died.
Hey, lets also tell all children that they are not the reason that there parents had children in and of themselves-the parents were just following their biological imperative and had no actual idea that their specific child would happen to be precious to them because of the way they turned out.


Because teaching illusions is bad and wrong! So let's all just sit down with our children and explain all of the horrific truths to them the moment they are capable of understanding them. Sounds good yes, OP?

Make sure the next time you see a kid crying you don't tell them that it will all be okay-instead make sure that they fully understand that they will die someday and when they do it will most likely be in a truly humiliating way and that as soon as they die their corpse will release its bowels (be sure to include the most likely ways they will die as well according to statistics too-this way they can really appreciate the knowledge of their own mortality).


Saying that teaching children about faith or religion is wrong means that telling a child to believe in any type of illusory thing is wrong. Who are you to say which illusion is good and which is bad, after all? Better play it safe and dispel them all.


So stick to your principals, OP, and really let 'em have it next time you see a kid, ok?

Well, this almost makes sense . . . until you think about it for 2 seconds.

You are saying that it is okay to teach children myths and outright lies as the truth because there are a lot of other errors in life.

And guess what? Children should be taught that it is very easy to fool the human brain and they should be on the lookout for it. That's the foundation of critical thinking, in case you missed that.

 

[Sophronius]

I agree, there are major differences between those statements. But, without evidence, I think that both beliefs can accurately be described as based on faith. If you feel that is not an appropriate description for your belief, please explain why.

Sure. Faith, to me at least, means not only the absence of evidence but the disregard for such. Faith means that you will stick by your position even if you are shown to be wrong. You could say that that is just blind faith and not all faith is like that, but at the very least faith implies a strong belief, while mine is a tentative one. I am more than happy to change my views if the available information changes.

I generally do. However, in regards to the 'indoctrination' and 'child abuse' terminology, the OP and others posting in this thread clearly feel that those are appropriate rather than nonsensical terms to use. I couldn't assume that you didn't feel similarly.

No, the nonsensical part is the idea that anyone here could literally disallow me to use a certain word (other than the mods, I suppose).

 

[Beth]

Sure. Faith, to me at least, means not only the absence of evidence but the disregard for such. Faith means that you will stick by your position even if you are shown to be wrong. You could say that that is just blind faith and not all faith is like that, but at the very least faith implies a strong belief, while mine is a tentative one. I am more than happy to change my views if the available information changes.

Thanks. Could you say, then, that you are of the opinion that religious education is child abuse? I've no objection to the idea that faith implies a strong belief as opposed to a more tentative belief. I don't agaree that the faith implies that contrary evidence must be disregarded. Also, there is an implied assumption that religious belief is not subject to change and/or reassessment. That may be sometimes true, but it isn't true of anyone and everyone who sends their child to Sunday school. Why saddle those who profess a religious belief with the assumption that their religious faith is a blind faith unaffected by evidence?

No, the nonsensical part is the idea that anyone here could literally disallow me to use a certain word (other than the mods, I suppose).

That's just my quirky sense of humor then. Sorry.

 

[Monkian1234]

Well, this almost makes sense . . . until you think about it for 2 seconds.

You are saying that it is okay to teach children myths and outright lies as the truth because there are a lot of other errors in life.

And guess what? Children should be taught that it is very easy to fool the human brain and they should be on the lookout for it. That's the foundation of critical thinking, in case you missed that.

Is that what I am saying? Thanks for letting me know!

See I thought I was saying that we shouldn't stop at religion. We should dispel all untruths, myths, and illusions.


I totally agree that we should teach children critical thinking. Just don't stop at one thing though! Next time you see a five year old with an imaginary friend, you should stop and tell them that their is no such thing. Who cares if it makes the kid's day seem a little brighter and better? It just plain isn't true so lets make sure they understand that ASAP!
Hey, lets also make the parents of said children have a penalty if they tacitly play along with the child's fantasy about the imaginary friend as the OP suggests.

As a master of critical thinking yourself (well at least in so far as you claim to know the basis of the entire discipline), I am sure you realize that taking a train of thought to its inevitable conclusion is also a big part of critical thinking. So lets just make sure we aren't selective in the way we teach children that there is no flying spaghetti monster, jeebus, what have you. We should really spell out all things for them and never, ever let them have a moment where they believe in something that you or I perceive to be fictional. Because that would be tantamount to the same thing as teaching them a lie.