Kids and religion - Page 3

[monkeyscience]

Originally Posted by 2xy

Of course we all influence our children, for better or worse. But I think that the most important thing to teach children is not whether religion is true or false, but merely to weigh the evidence and think for themselves.

And I think that's a perfectly valid opinion. But I see so many parents (ostensibly) trying not to influence their children's religious perceptions, and that just isn't possible. OF COURSE we influence our children. Our choice is not WHETHER to do so, but HOW we use that influence.

Originally Posted by 2xy

As for being atheist by default....that IS the default position. Children aren't born with beliefs and prejudices.

I don't agree with this, and that was also what I was trying to point out to the OP. Atheism is neither a neutral position, nor is it the default position. Agnosticism, which is NOT the same as atheism, is a much more neutral and default position. Although, as a Christian, I don't believe we're born agnostic, either, but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by tiffani

wow, thank you Meghan for taking the time to explain your perspective on this, I really appreciate it!

I suppose I see things from more of a biological/anthropological standpoint -- I don't actually really believe in the concept of good and evil, though there are certainly deeds that are good and deeds that are evil -- I don't, though, think that there is a good or evil force in the universe, or good or evil people, etc. I feel that humans are social creatures who exist mainly to propagate the species, and most of our behavior reflects this. We all want to be accepted by our group for survival purposes, and usually act accordingly. I believe that when things go awry, however (and I would be remiss if I didn't state that I think religion is often a factor in a person or group of people "going awry") it is due to people putting more emphasis or value on anything other than group cohesiveness, so that is where I go with ethical discussions with my kids -- "I want to live in a world where *insert happytimes story here*, and that begins with us" or "I want to live in a family where we are kind and supportive of each other, and we all need to do our part to make that happen", because every single person on the face of the planet, I believe, wants those things too. It saddens me when people are so wounded inside that they seem to not want those things, but I absolutely know, with every fiber of my being, that religious ethics are not the answer to creating peace. there is too much punishment and reward, warring of agendas, etc, with most any god-based religion, to ever create a peaceful global consensus if religion even exists. Which is why I, personally, can tolerate religion and if it brings someone personal peace and they don't try to convert anyone else, then great, go for it, but I do think that if religion had never been created (and in my mind it was certainly a man-made creation) the world would be a much better place. hence my position as an anti-theist, as opposed to an atheist. so there's me in a nutshell...

Yes, I can see how this would work. Though even among communal animals, there are some cases where selfish behavior is selected for, because it is advantageous. "nature red in tooth and claw" I think is the phrase. Would you say that is bad if it contributes to the strenghth of the species?

I don't think getting rid of religion is likely to bring peace to the planet, nor getting rid of anything else. We all seem to have an infinate desire within us for stuff, for power, or whatever. Which is to say, I think our problems as a society come from the individuals, not institutions. Evil in institutions has it's origins in individuals (though the institutions can make it easy for people to express their evil as well.)

Non-religious institutions are also tainted by evil, there are lots of examples of this in the 20th century.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by monkeyscience

I don't agree with this, and that was also what I was trying to point out to the OP. Atheism is neither a neutral position, nor is it the default position. Agnosticism, which is NOT the same as atheism, is a much more neutral and default position. Although, as a Christian, I don't believe we're born agnostic, either, but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion.

Atheism means "without belief in gods." Are you saying that children are born believing in gods?

Personally, I think we're all born as atheists AND agnostics. I also think that everyone on this planet is an agnostic whether they'll claim the word or not. Agnostic means "without knowledge." None of us KNOW, we just BELIEVE. If we KNEW, we wouldn't need FAITH.

You don't have to agree with me and I'm not particularly trying to persuade you. I'm just giving my opinions. And I think they are relative to this discussion, seeing as our beliefs and opinions are imposed upon our children whether we mean to or not.

Speaking for myself....I have friends of many faiths and of no faith. I believe in the natural world, and I do not believe in supernatural things. I don't respect the belief of supernatural things, but I respect your right to believe in it as long as you don't harm anyone else. Just like I don't respect my best friend's habit of smoking cigarettes, I neither respect her religious beliefs, because I think they're based on fairy tales and superstition. But I do respect her right to believe as much as her right to smoke.

And my kids know that I respect their rights to believe, as well. And they show the same respect to our friends who believe in XYZ.

[Drummer's Wife]

Originally Posted by 2xy

Atheism means "without belief in gods." Are you saying that children are born believing in gods?

Personally, I think we're all born as atheists AND agnostics. I also think that everyone on this planet is an agnostic whether they'll claim the word or not. Agnostic means "without knowledge." None of us KNOW, we just BELIEVE. If we KNEW, we wouldn't need FAITH.

You don't have to agree with me and I'm not particularly trying to persuade you. I'm just giving my opinions. And I think they are relative to this discussion, seeing as our beliefs and opinions are imposed upon our children whether we mean to or not.

Speaking for myself....I have friends of many faiths and of no faith. I believe in the natural world, and I do not believe in supernatural things. I don't respect the belief of supernatural things, but I respect your right to believe in it as long as you don't harm anyone else. Just like I don't respect my best friend's habit of smoking cigarettes, I neither respect her religious beliefs, because I think they're based on fairy tales and superstition. But I do respect her right to believe as much as her right to smoke.

And my kids know that I respect their rights to believe, as well. And they show the same respect to our friends who believe in XYZ.

I agree 100%. well said

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by 2xy

Atheism means "without belief in gods." Are you saying that children are born believing in gods?

Personally, I think we're all born as atheists AND agnostics. I also think that everyone on this planet is an agnostic whether they'll claim the word or not. Agnostic means "without knowledge." None of us KNOW, we just BELIEVE. If we KNEW, we wouldn't need FAITH.

You don't have to agree with me and I'm not particularly trying to persuade you. I'm just giving my opinions. And I think they are relative to this discussion, seeing as our beliefs and opinions are imposed upon our children whether we mean to or not.
.

Hmm, your use of the word faith here is not necessarily what all religious people would use.

Are children born agnostic? I think all knowledge of things outside of our self depends on faith - the faith that what our senses perceive is real and not a dream, that what happens has a reason behind it (I mean a physical cause,) that all of a sudden the sun won't disappear or fly if in a strange direction. There is actually no way to prove that any of these things.

Children are born with (or develop early) this kind of faith - that the world is ordered and predictable. They don't go around doubting the existence of everything. They take patterns and predictability for granted, and even over-generalize them. (for example I thought as a child that when women got old their hair got short and curly, kind of like male-pattern baldness.)

I suppose there is the odd person who is a real skeptic, but that path leads to the place Diogenes got to - living in a barrel keeping quiet.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I think all knowledge of things outside of our self depends on faith - the faith that what our senses perceive is real and not a dream, that what happens has a reason behind it (I mean a physical cause,) that all of a sudden the sun won't disappear or fly if in a strange direction.

I think that the knowledge of things outside of ourselves depend upon evidence. I'm not sure why a child would doubt reality the way you're describing. It sounds quite fearful, actually.

Children are born with (or develop early) this kind of faith - that the world is ordered and predictable. They don't go around doubting the existence of everything.

I agree. Children do not doubt the existence of things for which there is evidence.

I suppose there is the odd person who is a real skeptic, but that path leads to the place Diogenes got to - living in a barrel keeping quiet.

Diogenes was a Cynic; I don't really see him as a skeptic. From the little bit I've read about him, I also think he was mentally ill.

[Bluegoat]

[QUOTE=2xy;13161691]I think that the knowledge of things outside of ourselves depend upon evidence. I'm not sure why a child would doubt reality the way you're describing. It sounds quite fearful, actually.


No, I don't think they do doubt reality, which was part of my point. We are biologically inclined to take for granted that the things are senses perceive are really there, and to order them. I don't think they really even look for evidence, because that implies sifting information, which is learned later, I suspect.

But you are missing the point about evidence - what makes you think that the evidence is real? Why do we think that the earth will continue to revolve around the sun, just because it always has? Just because I can repeat an experiment 600 times with the same result does not mean it will be the same time 601, there is no way to make that logical leap. All of these involve deductive reasoning, not necessary logical conclusions.

For a long time in Christianity in the West (I can't speak for the other big religions on this) this is what was often meant by faith. When they say "I believe in order to understand" they are saying that without that kind of faith there is no possibility of any knowledge. That being said, the use of the word faith has changed since then, so you can never be sure what people mean.

I wouldn't be surprised if Diogenes was mentally ill, on the other hand I wouldn't assume it.

[Kidzaplenty]