Religious instruction is child abuse

[Lyrandar]

I'm just going to post a general statement on the OP: I do not quite agree with it.

I have never regarded religious instruction or religion itself as inherently harmful. I agree that it can and has motivated some of the most harmful behavior society has had to deal with or is dealing with today. However, I also see instances where it motivates entirely praiseworthy behavior. It may not be the best way to motivate good behavior, but it does work in some scenarios. I would compare it to venerating many soldiers as heroes despite the fact that many fought for no greater reason than to preserve their own lives. It is not a perfect example, but I see some parallels.

I can agree that in many cases, parents teaching their religion as the one true way and not allowing any dissent from their children can be highly undesirable, but 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. My gut impulse is to say none, but I guess I refuse to believe that little of anyone - I feel like there must be some moderates that are religious yet act in a more sensible manner.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't blame it all on religion, and I'm much more offended and disturbed by the effects of religion and superstition than I am of homophobia.

I continue to think that religious instruction always injures if it is at all successful and that the world would be a far better place if all religions and superstitions withered away and died.

Even if it magically somehow happened, the very next week there would be a whole new set of erroneous beliefs to take their place. That's just the way our limited perceptions, imperfect memory, and less than optimal communication abilities with others of our species interacts with the- forgive me - complexity of the universe in which we reside. Religion is just organised superstition, and we aren't getting rid of either until we signifigantly change human beings into something else altogether.

That this is very unlikely to happen makes me sad.

I'm a little depressed time travel doesn't seem likely to ever happen, but it's nothing to lose sleep over.

It appears that you would have me remain silent unless I can lead with evidence that would satisfy you.

I'd settle for just recognising and acknowledging that these rants are not based on reason, but emotion.

I'm sorry, but I do not have the resources to do that, and I am not inclined to remain silent.

Nor am I when I see someone getting all crusader-ey and un-logical.

We disagree vehemently on this and on a few other subjects, but I enjoy reading your posts nonetheless.

Likewise. You're a good man, as far as I know you.

 

[Lyrandar]

I continue to think that religious instruction always injures if it is at all successful and that the world would be a far better place if all religions and superstitions withered away and died.

... Do you just mean belief in these things? I would not hold that any of them is true, but I do believe that simply running into various depictions of supernatural beliefs, powers, magic, etc. has enriched my imagination and through that my life as a whole. I would not want such things to disappear entirely, although it might be possible for belief in these various fantasies to die out without them disappearing entirely.

 

[Complexity]

Piscivore - Things aren't going to change for the better - something that I've been saying throughout. This problem isn't going to go away.

I think this is a more important problem than the unlikelihood of timetrave.

I disagree with your characterization of posts as rants that are not based on reason but emotion.

I also disagree with your characterization of my posts (and perhaps me) as 'un-logical'.

Thanks.

 

[Complexity]

... Do you just mean belief in these things? I would not hold that any of them is true, but I do believe that simply running into various depictions of supernatural beliefs, powers, magic, etc. has enriched my imagination and through that my life as a whole. I would not want such things to disappear entirely, although it might be possible for belief in these various fantasies to die out without them disappearing entirely.

I just want the belief in them to disappear, not the ideas themselves.

I'm a great fan of fantasy and am writing some (albeit slowly). I'd hate to lose this treasure of human culture. But I certainly don't want anyone to actually believe any of it.

 

[Piscivore]

... Do you just mean belief in these things? I would not hold that any of them is true, but I do believe that simply running into various depictions of supernatural beliefs, powers, magic, etc. has enriched my imagination and through that my life as a whole.

Likewise.

One of the fun little things my family does when we go to a new place is evaluate it's survivability in a zombie apocalypse. By acting as if this were a real threat, a genuine possiblity- regardless of its plausibility or our belief it will happen- it has confered a number of benefits. My kids have learned to keep their eyes open, to pay attention to what happens around them, know where things are, know where they are in relation, and most of all, to have fun.

 

[Hannibal]

But if there was an underlying morality in your literature that taught or at least presented a better world view would you object to that being upheld as an example of appropriate behaviour?

Real or no, if it inspires people to do good and behave acceptably then that can be seen as a positive n'est pas?



(post aimed @complexity obviously!)

 

[westprog]

Which is exactly what I said.



As far as I can see, Complexity is using the word in the same way as I am and it is entirely justified. Telling children that they have to love jesus and believe everything in the bible or they will go to hell is indoctrination.

Is that what is says in the OP? No. It says that any form of religious instruction is child abuse. Not "extreme fundamentalist dogma", not "threatening children with Hell" - any form of religious instruction at all.

Mind you the parents won't see it as such, but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[Piscivore]

Piscivore - Things aren't going to change for the better - something that I've been saying throughout. This problem isn't going to go away.

I think this is a more important problem than the unlikelihood of timetrave.

Why? Humanity has been living with it literally the entire time we've been sentient, as far as anyone can tell.

I disagree with your characterization of posts as rants that are not based on reason but emotion.

I also disagree with your characterization of my posts (and perhaps me) as 'un-logical'.

Not you, and not your posts in general. Just your posts about religion.

 

[Complexity]

But if there was an underlying morality in your literature that taught or at least presented a better world view would you object to that being upheld as an example of appropriate behaviour?

Real or no, if it inspires people to do good and behave acceptably then that can be seen as a positive n'est pas?

(post aimed @complexity obviously!)

If there is something that I think can be gained from reading a book, I have no difficulty in recommending it to someone. I'll probably be writing a few posts on the Iliad and the Odyssey this weekend doing just that.

Would I object to a book being upheld as an example of appropriate behavior? Yes, I would object - that sentence makes my skin crawl.

The most that I think is appropriate is offering the suggestion of a book as something that I think is worth reading. Let the other person figure out what, if anything, is of value, let alone worthy of emulation.

 

[Complexity]

Why? Humanity has been living with it literally the entire time we've been sentient, as far as anyone can tell.

People have been suffering and dying from it during all of that time as well, as far as anyone can tell.

 

[westprog]

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.

What you might read about Jews, or gays, or women, or just about anybody should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

There are almost certainly people out there who tell children that they will burn in hell forever if they fail to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their saviour. It's quite clear that at the very least they don't represent the entirety of religion.

 

[Piscivore]

People have been suffering and dying from it during all of that time as well, as far as anyone can tell.

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.

 

[Hannibal]

If there is something that I think can be gained from reading a book, I have no difficulty in recommending it to someone. I'll probably be writing a few posts on the Iliad and the Odyssey this weekend doing just that.

Both awesome! I wpuld also suggest "The Aeneid" too, but be warned it is not as good

Would I object to a book being upheld as an example of appropriate behavior? Yes, I would object - that sentence makes my skin crawl.

Why? I find that reaction irrational. I can draw inspiration from many sources, not least a book. If the message or behaviour is perceived by the self as "wholesome" then I cannot see why you would have such an arbitrary reaction to tthe suggestion.

The most that I think is appropriate is offering the suggestion of a book as something that I think is worth reading. Let the other person figure out what, if anything, is of value, let alone worthy of emulation.

And if they do then is it not better to try and share their view with others so that they too may learn and improve themselves?

 

[Complexity]

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'm perfectly happy to blame some of poverty and privilege on religion as well, but I really don't want to spend more time on this.

Suffice it to say that our priorities and worldviews differ.

 

[Sophronius]

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.

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.

Yes, you can in fact. There are statistics on child abuse where it is well defined. "Hitting a kid" is defined as one form of child abuse, and we can look at statistics on how many kids are hit.

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.

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

What then are you basing your judgements on, if not "hard evidence" or emotion?

Reason.

It's the philosopher's primary instrument.

That's not at all clear. That the two sometimes coincide does not mean the religious education causes the lack of CT skills. In fact, it is equally likely (moreso, IMO) that the reverse is true- that lack of critical thinking skill leads one to accept anything they are told on faith, regardless of its content.

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?

If teachings as extreme as that wouldn't have any effect, surely it would follow that any endeavour to teach children to think critically would be useless. Surely this is not what most people believe. (Which does not make it false, mind you.)

Indeed, since we have seen that people who have received religious education but also have even remedial CT skill reject the teachings, and we also see people without CT skills falling victim to other non-religious erroneous information (psychics, homeopathy) that lack of CT skill, not religious education, is the real problem.

You cannot make that conclusion.

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.

3) Does not follow from 1) and 2) at all. You seem to be missing a part of your argument:

1b) People who have basic critical thinking skills can easily reject religious teachings.

This does not follow at all from statement 1 however.

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

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 recieved religious education. That's not what happens.

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.

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

That's not what I said. My question was conditional. The "if" changes the meaning. Also, I did not use the word "insist" or "wrong". I asked what is the benefit of believing things IF one has no evidence for them.

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.

An equivilent question is "Why have faith"?

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

If it were a loaded question, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't.

See, it's statements like this that just fail to be helpful.

 

[Lyrandar]

I just want the belief in them to disappear, not the ideas themselves.

I'm a great fan of fantasy and am writing some (albeit slowly). I'd hate to lose this treasure of human culture. But I certainly don't want anyone to actually believe any of it.

I'd thought as much. Glad to hear it.

I also like fantasy, and Piscivore's talk about zombie apocalypse sounds similar to me comparing the combat power of various types of magic against various real-life military forces. It's usually good for a little fun, although I'm not sure I'd say it's actually useful.

Back on topic...

The most that I think is appropriate is offering the suggestion of a book as something that I think is worth reading. Let the other person figure out what, if anything, is of value, let alone worthy of emulation.

I'll agree that this can work. However, I'd also say that telling someone that you believe the book is an example of good behavior is not harmful. I'd say it can even be helpful, if it gives the person a reason to read it and gives them something to think about as they read. Even if you tell them that they should believe the same, this does not prevent them from coming to their own conclusions.

Where religion tends to fail at this is the "you believe" part of that last statement. Religious texts are frequently presented as universal examples of good behavior, as opposed to the more qualified statement that this is something one person or some people think is an example of good behavior. Another potential problem is if the person you are talking to is incapable of reaching their own conclusions (which primarily would happen with very young children, I think).

... So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't agree with your statement as a generalization, but I can see how it can be applied to religion to reach a point similar to yours in the OP.

 

[westprog]

Again perhaps I should have been more clear. When I said "belief systems" I was specifically referring to

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

religious belief systems or, more simply, religions (as in legislating that all citizens must observe the Catholic faith by law).

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.

 

[Complexity]

Why? I find that reaction irrational. I can draw inspiration from many sources, not least a book. If the message or behaviour is perceived by the self as "wholesome" then I cannot see why you would have such an arbitrary reaction to tthe suggestion.

And if they do then is it not better to try and share their view with others so that they too may learn and improve themselves?

I'm not in favor of spoon-feeding people, of telling them how they should feel about what is in a book, or telling them what they should take from it. I don't think that people should be told that this behavior in a book is praiseworthy and that this is to be condemned.

I can tell them what I liked and what I didn't (though I often avoid even that), but that differs from saying what they should like and what they shouldn't.

I am much more of a descriptive than a prescriptive person.

I value the process of discovery too much to spoil it by giving them pre-digested and pre-packaged doggie-bags of lessons to take away from their encounter with a book.

I rarely read reviews of any kind, and gently stop people once they've made a recommendation before they get into why they like something. If their recommendations have tended to be good ones in the past, I'll read or watch something based upon that, neither needing nor wanting more in a recommendation.

I'm sorry that I didn't make any of these clear in my short response. I'm a bit distracted today (by good things).

 

[Sophronius]

No. It says that any form of religious instruction is child abuse. Not "extreme fundamentalist dogma", not "threatening children with Hell" - any form of religious instruction at all.

True, and I certainly don't agree with that. However, I think that Complexity intentionally worded his position very strongly. I don't think he believes that teaching your children about the bible without telling them to believe in it constitutes child abuse.

What you might read about Jews, or gays, or women, or just about anybody should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Actually, my knowledge of religious fundamentalists comes largely from fundamentalists themselves. I honestly doubt that despite spewing forth hated drivel seemingly 24/7 about how anyone who disagrees with them will burn forever and how they will enjoy watching them squirm before the lord when the time comes (slight exaggeration of actual behaviour) they are really happy and bubbly parents at home who educate their children with reason and patience.

Even less so when the subject of raising children itself is raised and they start ranting on that subject.

There are almost certainly people out there who tell children that they will burn in hell forever if they fail to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their saviour. It's quite clear that at the very least they don't represent the entirety of religion.

Agreed. However, there is still way, way too many of them.