Religious Question-Leave it alone? - Page 3

[purple peaches]

Joshua picked up a book about noahs arc from an opp shop (thrift store) when he was younger and as I read it where it said god, I said his god as he knows that I dont know what to belive but he believes someone is up there.
I would of let it be and brought it up latter, that people belive lots of things, and that no ones belives are wrong even if they are different from yours and that it can be fun to learn about others beliefs

[Music-mommy]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Huh? How is telling my child what a logical fallacy is, encouraging her to follow the status quo?


Again, I suppose it depends on the atheist. Most atheists with whom I've discussed origins have believed in the standard Big Bang theory involving matter of some sort which has always existed. I realise there are alternative theories, such as string theory.

No no, you misunderstood, or maybe I didn't explain properly. What I meant was that if you replied "Exactly" when your child said 'Christianity must be right because everybody I know believes it' - this would mean you are simply agreeing to her following the status quo and not teaching her to think for herself. However when I said "exactly" to my daughther saying "who created God if he created us?" was simply my way of saying "that is a very good question".


I'm curious about all these logical fallacies you speak of. Why would man's creation through Adam and Eve and the common christian belief not be a logical fallacy, when you say that the "big bang theory" is a logical fallacy?

[Music-mommy]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Well, the answer is 'Nobody', and the more complete answer is 'He always existed'.

Can you explain why this answer is not a logical fallacy, or explain the logic behind this answer?:

[Music-mommy]

Originally Posted by gaialice

Thank you!



Absolutely. And not only we adults are all spiritual beings and have deep spiritual needs, but the kids also. The point I am trying to make - also in my previous point - is that for the OP - this incident of her dd being read some stories from the bible (that apparently her dd was interested in) could be a sign that this is a good time to start reading and learning about religions with her. But not just through books. Looking at the sea - how each wave becomes one and distinct from the sea itself and can be ever so powerful and strong and then blends into the sea again as is ceases to be one individual wave ... this can be a deeply spiritual moment too, and children should (in my view) be encouraged to express their spirituality in the way they like best.

I agree, I also think that we are deluding ourselves to think that we can present an entirely unbiased perspective to our children. Our beliefs will always hold more weight with our children than others do, until they become old enough to really think critically. My mother was very open minded, introduced us to all religions, she knows history and religious history very well.

I think it is the same, in that we can feed our children little sugar, healthy food etc, teach them about health and be tolerant of those who feed their kids only junk food but in the end our children will grow up "believing" in their reality, in those values you put forth in your house.

Therefore it's completely impossible to remain completely unbiased in our teaching, and I'm not sure it's that healthy either, I think that is part of growing up. If you don't learn about things from passionate people and then either accept or reject what they are teaching then you learn little.


As long as we don't try to force it upon them, indoctrinate them with senseless and illogical beliefs, and encourage them to think for themselves, we can only hope that we have taught them to think critically as adults...

So as to the OP's question, limiting or avoiding topics, would be censorship really right? We can only learn to be tolerant of people, their faiths, their cultures etc... by learning about them, not by being fearful of them. Because in the end Christians, Atheists alike, we'd be better to spend our time teaching our children to be loving, caring and well balanced people, however we see fit, and however we think we can best do that, than to worry about who created us or how we were created.

[Smokering]

No no, you misunderstood, or maybe I didn't explain properly. What I meant was that if you replied "Exactly" when your child said 'Christianity must be right because everybody I know believes it' - this would mean you are simply agreeing to her following the status quo and not teaching her to think for herself. However when I said "exactly" to my daughther saying "who created God if he created us?" was simply my way of saying "that is a very good question".

Okay. Well yes, which is why I wouldn't say 'Exactly' to my daughter if she asked such a question--I'd explain, in an age-appropriate way, that she was using an informal fallacy known as 'argumentum ad populum', or 'if everybody you knew jumped off a bridge would that make it the smart thing to do?' I'm afraid I don't see how 'Exactly' as you posed it to your daughter means what you claim, but I'll take your word for it.

I'm curious about all these logical fallacies you speak of. Why would man's creation through Adam and Eve and the common christian belief not be a logical fallacy, when you say that the "big bang theory" is a logical fallacy?

I didn't say 'the big bang theory is a logical fallacy' per se, that's an oversimplification. If you want it in a nutshell, secular science--empiricism--is based on the formal logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, otherwise known as Hume's problem of induction. 'Christian' or theistic science circumvents this fallacy by the doctrine of occasionalism.

I'm sure you object to the Creation account in Genesis, but I'm curious as to why you'd call it a logical fallacy. 'Logical fallacy' isn't just a blanket term which means 'wrong', after all--to which specific formal fallacy are you referring?

Can you explain why this answer is not a logical fallacy, or explain the logic behind this answer?

Well, again, what's your problem with it on a logical level? God is uncreated and eternal, and while that may be a difficult concept to wrap one's head around, it isn't fallacious. Can you explain?

[Datura]

I've found that arguing with Smokering leaves one embarassed and slightly befuddled. I recommend going out and having iced chocolate and chips instead, hehe.

Our tact at home is to say that different cultures have different stories, allow him access to all of them and leave it at that. My son is far too much of a heathenistic, bare bummed wild child to be wrangled into a church pew, so I don't worry too much.

[gaialice]

Originally Posted by Music-mommy

I agree, I also think that we are deluding ourselves to think that we can present an entirely unbiased perspective to our children.

Of course. But, the line of thinking, I am atheist, so I will keep my dc completely in the dark as regards religion does not resonate with me. Of course, one will necessarily be more authentic by presenting one's own beliefs than those of others, yet it is important to at least try to present them. And in the end, the most important thing is to accept your children's beliefs, whatever they may be

[UUMom]

We atheists, but we talk religion all the time, and always have. Makes for very interesting conversations. We also have religious friends, and we've been to various services. We're Sukkot lovers to boot.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by whateverdidiwants

I'll be the voice of dissent and say that I wouldn't allow it. I don't want dd to be exposed to anything religious until she's at a less-impressionable age.

But kids begin to ask questions about the nature of things and the origins of the world as young as 3 - you need to be able to discuss these things with your children in order to encourage critical thinking. 3-4 year olds are perfectly capable of telling you the flaws in any line of thinking!

We are religious and when ds came up with his questions about the origins of things at age 3.5 "How did the first person get born if they didn't have a mother or a father?", I gave him both the Bible story and a mini version of evolution. I don't believe that the story in Genesis is the literal truth, so I'm OK with describing it as what people believed. I firmly believe in evolution.

And let me tell you that both the Bible story and evolution are hard for a child to swallow. When I told ds the Bible story, his response was "God made people from dirt"??! Ditto with evolution. "Scientists have said that life started with tiny, single celled organisms." "Huh?" "Well, very tiny beings kind of like germs. And then over time, life forms became more and more complex, until they became things like dogs and cats and trees and people." "We started from germs??!"

[butterflykisses4]

For now I would leave it alone. As is I am not athiest but dont believe that the bible is actual truth. I am a middle grounder. So that is what we teach here my children are 6,6,3,1 and we just say if their friend bring it up or whatever that sometimes things are like a good story. You read curious george and some people read other books. I owuld just leave it like that for now.

[thefreckledmama]

I'm on the other side of the coin, being a Christian. I think situations like those described in the OP, are VERY valuable when it comes to teaching children that there are many different beliefs out there, and that regardless of what we believe, we need to be respectful of other's beliefs, and that you don't always have to be trying to prove that theirs are wrong.

That being said, if I were you I would continue to monitor the kinds of exchanges that your daughter has with this particular friend, not only so you can redirect anything you don't want left hanging without the counter of your own beliefs, but also so you know whether or not it's anything to worry about-it might not be. I think that when it comes to the exchanges of children, unless they are dangerous or inappropriate, it's usually best to let them be. Now, if the friend's parents were the ones discussing it with your daughter, or actively encouraging their daughter to try and 'convert' yours, I would have a serious talk with them about it, asking them how they would like it if you did the same to their daughter.

[Music-mommy]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Okay. Well yes, which is why I wouldn't say 'Exactly' to my daughter if she asked such a question--I'd explain, in an age-appropriate way, that she was using an informal fallacy known as 'argumentum ad populum', or 'if everybody you knew jumped off a bridge would that make it the smart thing to do?' I'm afraid I don't see how 'Exactly' as you posed it to your daughter means what you claim, but I'll take your word for it.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Smokering

I didn't say 'the big bang theory is a logical fallacy' per se, that's an oversimplification. If you want it in a nutshell, secular science--empiricism--is based on the formal logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, otherwise known as Hume's problem of induction. 'Christian' or theistic science circumvents this fallacy by the doctrine of occasionalism.

I'm sorry Smokering, but using latin terms simply doesn't cut it with me, you are not explaining anything here, simply spouting off some latin terminology.

The doctrine of occasionalism is based in the belief that God exists. Again, this is a belief, to which you cannot apply logic.

I'm sure you object to the Creation account in Genesis, but I'm curious as to why you'd call it a logical fallacy. 'Logical fallacy' isn't just a blanket term which means 'wrong', after all--to which specific formal fallacy are you referring?

Well, again, what's your problem with it on a logical level? God is uncreated and eternal, and while that may be a difficult concept to wrap one's head around, it isn't fallacious. Can you explain?

You are assuming that God is real. This is an assumption, and not scientific fact. You too are confusing logical fallacy with fallacy. You don't actually know if the fact that God exists is fallacious or not, you simply believe it. And that is fine, but you must not assume that you know the truth when you assume this. You might you might not...


Anyhow, terminology aside, my point is that there is little logic behind any belief system. I'm not bashing religion here at all, we all have beliefs that are based on just that belief, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that what we believe comes from logic.

[Music-mommy]

Originally Posted by LynnS6

But kids begin to ask questions about the nature of things and the origins of the world as young as 3 - you need to be able to discuss these things with your children in order to encourage critical thinking. 3-4 year olds are perfectly capable of telling you the flaws in any line of thinking!

We are religious and when ds came up with his questions about the origins of things at age 3.5 "How did the first person get born if they didn't have a mother or a father?", I gave him both the Bible story and a mini version of evolution. I don't believe that the story in Genesis is the literal truth, so I'm OK with describing it as what people believed. I firmly believe in evolution.

And let me tell you that both the Bible story and evolution are hard for a child to swallow. When I told ds the Bible story, his response was "God made people from dirt"??! Ditto with evolution. "Scientists have said that life started with tiny, single celled organisms." "Huh?" "Well, very tiny beings kind of like germs. And then over time, life forms became more and more complex, until they became things like dogs and cats and trees and people." "We started from germs??!"

Yes exactly! Kids will blow holes through anything you try to explain to them at this age. I think it's ok sometimes to say "I don't know" or "nobody really knows the truth".... we can only believe what makes sense to us. We don't need to have the answer to every question.

[Music-mommy]

Originally Posted by gaialice

Of course. But, the line of thinking, I am atheist, so I will keep my dc completely in the dark as regards religion does not resonate with me. Of course, one will necessarily be more authentic by presenting one's own beliefs than those of others, yet it is important to at least try to present them. And in the end, the most important thing is to accept your children's beliefs, whatever they may be

Here here!

[Smokering]

I'm sorry Smokering, but using latin terms simply doesn't cut it with me, you are not explaining anything here, simply spouting off some latin terminology.

Um... well, you could look up post hoc ergo propter hoc and see what it means... Translated, it means 'After this, therefore because of this'. Google Hume's Problem of Induction and you'll find many sites which explain it nicely.

You are assuming that God is real. This is an assumption, and not scientific fact. You too are confusing logical fallacy with fallacy. You don't actually know if the fact that God exists is fallacious or not, you simply believe it. And that is fine, but you must not assume that you know the truth when you assume this. You might you might not...

Yes, 'God is real' is an assumption, just as 'God is not real' is an assumption (and scientific fact doesn't really enter into it, as secular science by definition has no comment on the supernatural). However, why do you say that logic cannot be applied to either of these assumptions? Presuppositional theology is largely dedicated to teasing out the implications of assumptions or first principles, and seeing if they can create an internally consistent, logically valid worldview.

As for 'fallacy', I use the term in a logical sense because that's how it's generally used. If you simply mean 'wrong', why say 'fallacy' which is generally associated with logic? Or are you using 'fallacy' in a completely different sense, with which I'm unfamiliar? Merriam-Webster only has it listed in the senses of 'wrong', 'logically fallacious' or 'deceptive'.

[mightymoo]

Moving to Religious Studies.

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by Jessy1019

Yup . . . I would (and have) made it clear to my dd that bible stories are just fiction that some people think are true (not me or her dad, though). The ones she's heard, she thinks are very unbelievable anyway -- like the xmas story/Jesus' conception.

would you do this in front of the child reading? I would be pretty ticked if someone told my dd the Bible was fiction.

if a kindergarten kid was reading to my dd and I disapproved of the content I would wait it out and listen a little. if things needed to be shut down i would go in and compliment the child on her reading (I mean heck thats pretty good!) and say it was "time to . . . . . start a movie/brush teeth/go to bed/go to the store for treats . . .whatever" and move on to something else. and then i would talk to my child after the friend went home about why we don't read that book.

[Tradd]

Waaay OT:

Am I the only one who caught the OP's mention of her daughter & the daughter's friend making jewelry out of clean tampons! OMG!:

[ReadingMama]

Originally Posted by lyttlewon

Her friend is very bossy so I will have to keep an ear out to see if she tries to convert DD.

She's only 5! Five year olds may talk about what they believe in, but I hardly think she's trying to "convert" your daughter. A question to ponder is, would you be this concerned if a friend of your child's was Buddhist or some other non-Christian religion? What if your daughter had a friend of another race with major cultural differences? Would you want to limit that child's expression because it's different from yours, or would you see it as an interesting difference to talk to your daughter about?

One more note--not all Christians are "evangelical." Some of us believe that living our faith and being willing to talk about our experiences and answer questions if asked is enough. There are lots of us who think that ramming Christianity down people's throats is not the way to lead them to God.

[mamaverdi]

What is the doctrine of occasionalism?

What is the logical falacy on which the scientific method is based?