Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[Riverwolf]

But there is a CRUCIAL between beliefs that have logical underpinnings and those that have supernatural underpinnings.

I would argue that the bulk of peoples' beliefs have neither as primary underpinnings, but rather primarily contain cultural and emotional underpinnings. Humans as a species are emotional first and rational second, and have an innate desire to fit in to a culture.

 

[icehorse]

I would argue that the bulk of peoples' beliefs have neither as primary underpinnings, but rather primarily contain cultural and emotional underpinnings. Humans as a species are emotional first and rational second, and have an innate desire to fit in to a culture.

It seems that religion has a big impact on the world, no? Are you saying that religious beliefs aren't a significant factor in the world?

 

[Riverwolf]

It seems that religion has a big impact on the world, no? Are you saying that religious beliefs aren't a significant factor in the world?

Religion is, first and foremost, a type of cultural expression, conception, and activity, with about the same amount of impact on the world as others (which don't often get as much coverage for general lack of political presence).

All I'm saying is that it's not as simple a dichotomy as what you presented. Aspects of culture that are not based in supernatural assumptions are not necessarily logical, either.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

Where's the evidence? This is a question quite rightly asked by people who question or disbelieve in all the forms of theism. And yet, with no evidence, you assert that religion "pollutes" a child's mind (whatever that means). You also imply that "proselytizing" children is somehow more psychologically coercive than the manner in which we transmit all other kinds of beliefs and values to our children. Again, where's the evidence? And where is the evidence that teaching a child one's own religion has any of the clinical effects seen in cases of child abuse as defined by medicine and law?

The closest thing you have to an argument is an appeal to the authority of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, neither of whom has (or had) any expertise in developmental psychology.

Evidence free and full of bile. Your fulminations bear an eery resemblance to the diatribes of Christian fundamentalists.

 

[icehorse]

Religion is, first and foremost, a type of cultural expression, conception, and activity, with about the same amount of impact on the world as others (which don't often get as much coverage for general lack of political presence).

I'd grant you some overlap, I'm not convinced it's "first and foremost". One reason I say that is because we see single religions spanning many diverse cultures. I also don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that the cultural has the same impact as the religious?

All I'm saying is that it's not as simple a dichotomy as what you presented. Aspects of culture that are not based in supernatural assumptions are not necessarily logical, either.

I don't think I presented it as a dichotomy? What I believe is that it's a significant factor.

 

[icehorse]

Where's the evidence? This is a question quite rightly asked by people who question or disbelieve in all the forms of theism. And yet, with no evidence, you assert that religion "pollutes" a child's mind (whatever that means). You also imply that "proselytizing" children is somehow more psychologically coercive than the manner in which we transmit all other kinds of beliefs and values to our children. Again, where's the evidence? And where is the evidence that teaching a child one's own religion has any of the clinical effects seen in cases of child abuse as defined by medicine and law?

The closest thing you have to an argument is an appeal to the authority of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, neither of whom has (or had) any expertise in developmental psychology.

Evidence free and full of bile. Your fulminations bear an eery resemblance to the diatribes of Christian fundamentalists.

Some of what gets conveyed to children is dogmatic, some is evidenced-based. We should minimize the former and maximize the latter.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'd grant you some overlap, I'm not convinced it's "first and foremost". One reason I say that is because we see single religions spanning many diverse cultures. I also don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that the cultural has the same impact as the religious?

Because religious is a form of cultural. Much of culture is also shaped by other forms, such as literature, art, festivals, contemporary legends, etc., and as far as I can tell, no less impact, even if the impact seems less dramatic.

Christianity in the US is very, very different from Christianity in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Middle East, etc. While technically the same religion, the actual expressions are informed by the particular culture in question(even the exact content of the Bible varies). The same is seen in Buddhism and Islam, the other two major world religions: neither is exactly the same wherever it can be found, but varies depending on the particularities of a given culture. It's not entirely incorrect to label the names of these religions as umbrella terms for multiple sub-religions that share core commonalities, like Hinduism and Paganism are.

I don't think I presented it as a dichotomy? What I believe is that it's a significant factor.

It looked like a dichotomy to me, at least insofar as you seemed to be presenting that the most significant factors of cultural influence are either supernatural based or logical based, where I argue that while there's plenty of supernatural based influence, logical based influence isn't the only alternative.

 

[icehorse]

Riverwolf said:

Because religious is a form of cultural.

I'd agree that:
- a given religion will be somewhat modified from culture to culture
- a given culture will be somewhat shaped by the popular religions it supports

But those are both many-to-many relationships, i.e. a given religion exists across many cultures, and a given culture often supports many religions.

Are you saying the ties are more fundamental than that?

==

As far as the dichotomy goes, it does indeed look like that's how I presented it. My bad. Before going forward, according to my extensive research (a couple of google searches), Hinduism is the third most popular religion, so Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism together account for about 80% of the world's religious adherents, and all of three of those religions place supernatural god(s) in the center of their faith. So it seems to me, I'm on safe ground when I say that a belief in the supernatural is core for most religious people. No?

 

[Riverwolf]

Riverwolf said:

I'd agree that:
- a given religion will be somewhat modified from culture to culture
- a given culture will be somewhat shaped by the popular religions it supports

But those are both many-to-many relationships, i.e. a given religion exists across many cultures, and a given culture often supports many religions.

Are you saying the ties are more fundamental than that?

I am, simply because of the immense amount of variation the three major world religions have across different cultures, particularly in comparison with religions that are more locked into a particular country, like Hinduism or Shinto being effectively dependent on being culturally Indian or Japanese, respectively. (Though the former slowly becoming less so as people from other cultures slowly integrate aspects of it into their own native cultures, as I tried and ultimately failed to do.)

As far as the dichotomy goes, it does indeed look like that's how I presented it. My bad. Before going forward, according to my extensive research (a couple of google searches), Hinduism is the third most popular religion, so Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism together account for about 80% of the world's religious adherents, and all of three of those religions place supernatural god(s) in the center of their faith. So it seems to me, I'm on safe ground when I say that a belief in the supernatural is core for most religious people. No?

If by "religious people", we mean people who are highly enthusiastic about their religion and spend a lot of time thinking, speaking, and acting in its terms, then yes. Though I should point out that Hinduism, as I said above, is very closely tied to India, with almost no presence outside that country. Its huge number of adherents is pretty much solely based on India's immense overpopulation; it's therefore not really comparable to Christianity and Islam in terms of global influence. Buddhism is the third major world religion, because it's left its native India (so thoroughly, in fact, that I understand it has hardly any presence there at all), and successfully integrated itself into, and by extension influencing, other cultures. Japanese Buddhism is very different from Indian Buddhism, both very different from US Buddhism. And while the Buddha himself taught skepticism and general agnosticism in regards to supernatural things, there's certainly no denying that most forms of popular Buddhism involve supernatural elements (even going so far as elevating the Buddha to an almost God-like figure... even though he's supposed to have attained Nirvana and therefore shouldn't exist anymore. LOL)

But that does exclude a lot of people who may belong to, or practice, a religion but give it relatively little thought in comparison to other matters. Are we just not counting them among "religious people"? If so, then the actual percentage of "religious people" at least in my culture drops dramatically. (Or at least the culture most visible to me, that being the geographic culture of Northern California and its nearby sisters, and geek culture in which I barely participate for entirely unrelated reasons but do get to observe on a very regular basis; I say that because, even though we're technically in the same country, I regard the Bible Belt just as culturally foreign to me as Saudi Arabia).

 

[icehorse]

Hey Riverwolf,

Ok, so if we add Buddhism we're over 90% of the world's adherents. Now I also agree that many folks who would call themselves religious, don't believe in the supernatural aspects of religion. But according to this recent poll, about 75% of religious Americans believe in God and miracles:

Good news: belief in God and the supernatural appears to wane « Why Evolution Is True

So it would seem that - conservatively - several billion people on the planet believe in the supernatural. Does that seem reasonable?

BTW - I'm in NorCal myself (howdy neighbor), and it seems to me that we're in a bit of a bubble here that doesn't really represent "normal America".

 

[Riverwolf]

Hey Riverwolf,

Ok, so if we add Buddhism we're over 90% of the world's adherents. Now I also agree that many folks who would call themselves religious, don't believe in the supernatural aspects of religion. But according to this recent poll, about 75% of religious Americans believe in God and miracles:

Good news: belief in God and the supernatural appears to wane « Why Evolution Is True

So it would seem that - conservatively - several billion people on the planet believe in the supernatural. Does that seem reasonable?

BTW - I'm in NorCal myself (howdy neighbor), and it seems to me that we're in a bit of a bubble here that doesn't really represent "normal America".

It would, indeed... particularly where I am specifically. I'm not in San Francisco, but I'm pretty darn close: Diablo Valley. The place where, when one Christian petitioned to get Mt. Diablo's name changed, it failed. The newspaper headlines read, "The Devil You Know". We did get a Bible lesson in High School... but it was Senior English class: the Bible as Literature, and it was just one of four literature pieces we studied. It was also the first time I'd ever read any of the Bible in my life. (I didn't know who Jesus was, and I first learned who he was from Jesus Christ Superstar).

So, I do wonder how much the Bible Belt is inflating the results of that poll.

I think the problem is that there's kind of this conception that the US is culturally homogenous, with a few exceptions, and it's not. Hence terms like "Bible Belt", which refers to an area that's technically in the US borders, but culturally may as well be an entirely different country. Where we are is the West Coast, exemplified by high liberalism and cultural output (and Silicon Valley). Or heck, I've been to New York and Tokyo, and because I'm somewhat of an American Otaku, I felt more at home in the latter than the former (I'm not Japanese at all).

I wonder what would happen if those polls were to be region-specific.

But I do remember the movie Contact, when someone says "85% of the world's population believes in a supreme being of one form or another". While I don't know how accurate that number is, there's no denying that it's true for the vast majority of people, even taking into account Buddhism; the Buddha is at least a figurehead of high regard and respect.

However, I also argue that the sort of abuse that comes from raising children in fear-based religion and morality will occur regardless of the presence of religion. The Soviet Union (is modern Russia considered secular?) and China prove that well enough. Therefore, the crux of my argument is this: religion is not the causal force behind this behavior seen in too many parents, even though it is, for us, the most visible expression of this behavior. Heck, I may not have had hellfire to deal with, but I did still hear whispers of the boogie-man(not from my immediate family, mind, but still). Take religion away, and I'd wager the boogie-man would simply replace hellfire, at least at first: be good or the boogie-man will come and get'cha.

 

[serp777]

Where's the evidence? This is a question quite rightly asked by people who question or disbelieve in all the forms of theism. And yet, with no evidence, you assert that religion "pollutes" a child's mind (whatever that means). You also imply that "proselytizing" children is somehow more psychologically coercive than the manner in which we transmit all other kinds of beliefs and values to our children. Again, where's the evidence? And where is the evidence that teaching a child one's own religion has any of the clinical effects seen in cases of child abuse as defined by medicine and law?

The closest thing you have to an argument is an appeal to the authority of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, neither of whom has (or had) any expertise in developmental psychology.

Evidence free and full of bile. Your fulminations bear an eery resemblance to the diatribes of Christian fundamentalists.

You didn't understand the argument whatsoever.

I made several comparisons to show why religious labeling is bizarre. We don't label children republicans or homosexuals, or any other very personal decisions that require a lot reflection and personal analysis. Religion is actually the most complex of them alland requires the most personal reflection. So labeling children is ethically questionable.

Also I find it strange that you're asking why propaganda inhibits a child's development. I mean, do you think the propaganda in North Korea inhibits a child's development, or not? There's no evidence for it that im aware of, and yet im sure you'd agree that they're imposing values and beliefs too vehemently. THis is not a strawman though because North Korea is really just an extreme version of forcing beliefs onto children, like religious household often do. It is well known that children have higher plasticity in their brains, and naturally, information learned early in their development tends to become more ingrained. That's why children tend to take on the particular religion of their household and family. If you'd like sources for that I can provide it. Logically, educating children about a variety of faiths and philosophies will not only give them an expanded knowledge base, but also more analysis and decision making skills which they would use to pick their own, instead of having it forced upon them at a young age so it becomes ingrained. Its an invaluable learning opportunity and an exercise of self discovery, which is robbed from them.

"You also imply that "proselytizing" children is somehow more psychologically coercive than the manner in which we transmit all other kinds of beliefs and values to our children. "
Compared to what other kinds of beliefs exactly? Many here have made the terrible argument that we teach children many things to be taken at by face value like not getting in a van with strangers or standing too close to a cliff. This is entirely different because not all beliefs and values we teach our children have the same weight. Standing too close too a cliff might get you killed, but religious beliefs won't practicality help you at all. It will probably only help you waste time performing some mindless ritual a child doesn't understand.

ANd I never made an appeal to authority at all; all i did was cite one of their arguments--it was never "Im correct because Christopher hitchens says so." You should really become more versed in argumentative fallacies before using them. Generally plagiarizing an argument is bad; people who are educated know that. Citing =/= argument from authority.

"And where is the evidence that teaching a child one's own religion has any of the clinical effects seen in cases of child abuse as defined by medicine and law? "
Is there any evidence that strict North Korean propaganda hurts a child's development? I mean where do you draw the line before personal enlightenment and being told everything you have to believe in and value. My stance is that children should be able to have the most personal enlightenment possible. And I will provide some more deductive evidence since you seem like you could use some education. According to a poll 42% (46% in others) of US students believe in young earth creationism for human origins. This staunchly defies the scientific evidence and denial of the scientific method (evolution, geology, plate tectonics,etc), while hurting the future generation of scientists and engineers because of religious beliefs; this is definitely robbing children of their future, and hurting the future of everyone else since the world needs as many scientists and engineers as it can get. Students would rather believe in religious assertions than science because their families imposed beliefs on them when they were young. They're more likely to believe in religious texts and follow doctrine than learn valuable scientific knowledge.

In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

"Your fulminations bear an eery resemblance to the diatribes of Christian fundamentalists."
A thread condemning religious propaganda being forced onto children, and encouraging a balanced education to let children come to their own conclusions resembles Christian fundamentalists? Not sure if you're joking or just ignorant. have you ever read anything from a Christian fundamentalists. You also need to read the other arguments posted throughout the thread because clearly you skimmed the first post, misunderstood it, and then ignored the rest of my rebuttals to people.

And finally where is YOUR evidence that teaching a child religious beliefs has any benefit whatsoever?

 

[serp777]

Some of what gets conveyed to children is dogmatic, some is evidenced-based. We should minimize the former and maximize the latter.

Unfortunately almost no religious beliefs are evidence based lol.

 

[metis]

As one who has been a theist, atheist, and one who's now pretty much agnostic; and also one with my wife of 47 years who has raised three kids and six grandkids, I prefer they be brought up with some religious training but only with a very open mind about other faiths and non-faiths. There really are some advantages to doing it this way, and I have had plenty of opportunity to see the results of kids being brought up in a faith and those who have not, and I'll take the former most of the time based on my 69 years of observations.

Reinforcement of basic morals and values is important, and anything that can help should be considered, but this should be open enough to different ideas as to not stifle open-mindedness and creativity.

 

[icehorse]

As one who has been a theist, atheist, and one who's now pretty much agnostic; and also one with my wife of 47 years who has raised three kids and six grandkids, I prefer they be brought up with some religious training but only with a very open mind about other faiths and non-faiths. There really are some advantages to doing it this way, and I have had plenty of opportunity to see the results of kids being brought up in a faith and those who have not, and I'll take the former most of the time based on my 69 years of observations.

Reinforcement of basic morals and values is important, and anything that can help should be considered, but this should be open enough to different ideas as to not stifle open-mindedness and creativity.

I'm all for teaching morals and values. But serious question: is religion really a good way to do that? It seems you have to cut through a lot of noise to tease good values and moral teachings out of religion...

 

[metis]

I'm all for teaching morals and values. But serious question: is religion really a good way to do that? It seems you have to cut through a lot of noise to tease good values and moral teachings out of religion...

Religion is only one vehicle, so I would say no, it isn't the only one, and it certainly is not for everyone. If you've raised kids, you know that any kind of reinforcement of basic morality can really help.

 

[1robin]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

Let me first agree with you a little bit. Labeling a Child as a thing that is only the result of choice is meaningless. If it is a false religion then it is evil, if it is a true faith (like IMO Christianity) then it is benign but ultimately meaningless. Christianity places children in a state of grace until the age of accountability. Then to considered in a righteous relationship with God the child (person) must chose to accept God. No one can will a child into a righteous relationship with God. However there are many layers to this. Some Christians baptize children long before they are old enough to chose anything. I disagree with this but see nothing bad about it. Others dedicate their child to God. I see this as at least being of good intentions but it again will not take the place of that person's own decision. Now let me disagree with you. If any person sincerely believes that a specific God exists then at least their motives cannot be questioned. If I truly believe Yahweh is God then of course I wish my child to grow up in a faithful household. It is only a doctrinal position that I cannot force the child to chose for God but if he exists then that would be the greatest possible wish I could have for my children. Your idea about laws against it is far more fundamental and divisive than even those parents who sincerely believe in a false God directing their kids in that direction. Unless you know (and you do not) that a particular God does not exist invading homes and telling parents what they can't do with their kids (as far as their raising them in a faith) is the one of the greatest evils I can think of. Sounds like something I would expect Stalin or Pol Pot to think of. As much as I resent Islam I would consider the sincere efforts they make to be far more justifiable than what you suggest.

 

[1robin]

I'm all for teaching morals and values. But serious question: is religion really a good way to do that? It seems you have to cut through a lot of noise to tease good values and moral teachings out of religion...

Only if a God exists is there an actual morality to teach. Of course if teaching morality based on a false God it would be a false morality but if based on the one true God it is the best possible way to communicate and ground moral truths. Without being able to prove what God if any exists then by default.

1. A false God would be the worst way to teach morality.
2. Teaching morality in the absence of the necessity for objective moral facts to even exist (God) is the most meaningless and vacuous way of transmitting moral truths.
3. Based on a real and moral God it is the best possible way to ground morality.

 

[icehorse]

Only if a God exists is there an actual morality to teach. Of course if teaching morality based on a false God it would be a false morality but if based on the one true God it is the best possible way to communicate and ground moral truths. Without being able to prove what God if any exists then by default.

1. A false God would be the worst way to teach morality.
2. Teaching morality in the absence of the necessity for objective moral facts to even exist (God) is the most meaningless and vacuous way of transmitting moral truths.
3. Based on a real and moral God it is the best possible way to ground morality.

Can you give an example of a moral teaching from your one true god, and how you came to know it?

 

[1robin]

Can you give an example of a moral teaching from your one true god, and how you came to know it?

That is a whole other subject. It is sort of a joke among Christian scholars that you can't ask an ontological moral question without getting an epistemological response. I use to point out what the difference is and why it is not a fitting response but found I could not even stop it by anticipating and heading it off. So I gave up the effort. I do not have to be able to show what moral follows from a specific God to show that only from God can any morality flow. Nature is morally important, no molecule in the universe has a moral property, and natural law cannot tell us how things "ought" to be. I can attempt to shed some light on how and why I may say that because God exist murder is wrong but I want to make first make certain that without God nothing is actually contrary to any objective moral fact. My three points have no dependence on which moral is true. They are true (and necessarily so) of morality in general. They are also propositional inevitabilities. I did not say I could prove which one is true but it remains that one must still be true. Now that I have said that I will elaborate on what morals are true and why if you still request it. However what I claimed is true even if no one knew what God existed or a single specific moral fact what so ever.