Should parents teach their children religion?

[LuisDantas]

Note how you made no reasoned argument. You just made an unsupported claim. Science as methodological naturalism is a belief system, because it starts with the assumption that the world is natural and we can trust the universe:

William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.
Then there is the paradox of a Boltzmann Brain.

I am not going there, except to make it explicit that I have no time for such a game, and no patience for attempts at forcing such a view into children.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not going there, except to make it explicit that I have no time for such a game, and no patience for attempts at forcing such a view into children.

Well, children at the age 11+ are not just children, they are at the beginning of forming their adult brains. For all I care, we can wait until 15-16, that is properly wiser.
But I like that you answer with emotion and not science. That is the limit of science BTW. You use emotions, which you can't give evidence for using science. Neither can I, I just know that.

You want a better world without theism. I want a better world without any authoritarian claims including theism.
You focus on theism. I focus on the class of authoritarian thinking including theism but not restricted to religion.

 

[Polymath257]

Parents should raise children so that they will become responsible, thinking, caring adults. If you keep that goal in mind, many parenting issues become a LOT easier.

Parents (and schools) should teach about the range of human beliefs: from Greek mythology, to Christian mythology, to Native American mythology. A good exposure to the wide variety of human thought is part of a good education.

But to *indoctrinate* children into a religion is less advisable. Some mythologies are relatively benign and can serve as a basis for decision making (although again, having the whole range of human beliefs represented is even better---learn to pick and choose). But others can seriously harm emotional and intellectual development. Such should be avoided.

But to go further and actually deny medical treatment should be designated as child abuse.

 

[Polymath257]

You want a better world without theism. I want a better world without any authoritarian claims including theism.
You focus on theism. I focus on the class of authoritarian thinking including theism but not restricted to religion.

I think 'authority' is something that can, and should exist. But it should be based on knowledge or skills that can actually be acquired as opposed to systems of faith.

Scientific knowledge is a reasonable authority because it tests and re-tests its ideas at each stage of the process. There are ways of resolving disputes by observation and these ways often give definitive answers.

In contrast, most religious conflicts cannot be resolved simply because there is no way to test their ideas. This ultimately means there is not and cannot be such a thing as a 'religious authority'.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Parents should raise children so that they will become responsible, thinking, caring adults. If you keep that goal in mind, many parenting issues become a LOT easier.

Parents (and schools) should teach about the range of human beliefs: from Greek mythology, to Christian mythology, to Native American mythology. A good exposure to the wide variety of human thought is part of a good education.

Telling that you left out philosophy as different worldviews. So what level of thinking should we go for in caring:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

But to *indoctrinate* children into a religion is less advisable. Some mythologies are relatively benign and can serve as a basis for decision making (although again, having the whole range of human beliefs represented is even better---learn to pick and choose). But others can seriously harm emotional and intellectual development. Such should be avoided.

It is not religion, which can seriously harm emotional and intellectual development. Go back to the link and move combine with this:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
Morality is a social construct of how to treat and view other humans and behave.
The idea, how ever phrased, that there is one and one way to understand reality and how to treat humans, which can seriously harm emotional and intellectual development and now combine with tribalism and in-groups.

But to go further and actually deny medical treatment should be designated as child abuse.

Yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think 'authority' is something that can, and should exist. But it should be based on knowledge or skills that can actually be acquired as opposed to systems of faith.

Scientific knowledge is a reasonable authority because it tests and re-tests its ideas at each stage of the process. There are ways of resolving disputes by observation and these ways often give definitive answers.

In contrast, most religious conflicts cannot be resolved simply because there is no way to test their ideas. This ultimately means there is not and cannot be such a thing as a 'religious authority'.

At least, that's how I see it.

Yes, but then remember these limits to science.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science is only authoritative for the natural and objective. Not for the cultural, social and subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

Telling that you left out philosophy as different worldviews. So what level of thinking should we go for in caring:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Oh, I very much include philosophy in the range of human thoughts that should be investigated.

You are assuming that Kohlberg is the last and best description of moral development. While the ideas are interesting, I'm not 100% sure they are the final answer.

It is not religion, which can seriously harm emotional and intellectual development. Go back to the link and move combine with this:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
Morality is a social construct of how to treat and view other humans and behave.
The idea, how ever phrased, that there is one and one way to understand reality and how to treat humans, which can seriously harm emotional and intellectual development and now combine with tribalism and in-groups.

And cognitive relativism is one of the many viewpoints that should be discussed. I happen to think it is wrong, but certainly worth discussing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, I very much include philosophy in the range of human thoughts that should be investigated.

You are assuming that Kohlberg is the last and best description of moral development. While the ideas are interesting, I'm not 100% sure they are the final answer.

No, you are right. The technical term is that it is a "half-truth". It is an aspect, which shouldn't be overlook, but there is more than Kohlberg. The reason, I brought it up, is that morality seems to in some sense to correlate with cognitive development.

And cognitive relativism is one of the many viewpoints that should be discussed. I happen to think it is wrong, but certainly worth discussing.

Well, it might tell you something that you think it is wrong. That is one of the points of cognitive relativism. Right and wrong depends on cognition; i.e. thinking. If we didn't have cognitive relativism, then we couldn't understand the world differently and have all these versions of morality, ethics, truth, right, wrong, good and bad.

Thank you for your answers.

 

[ecco]

I don't know, that the God, I believe in, is real. I know, I believe and that doesn't mean that, what I believe in, is real.
You really like to talk in absolutes about how other humans are.
I tells me, that you in all likelihood project your thinking onto other humans and don't recognize what you are doing.

If you are not a person who knows his God is real, then you should be classified as an agnostic. I wasn't referring to agnostics. I was referring to people who know their God is the Real God.

I have no problem admitting that the God I believe in, is in my mind. And as such it is a subjective claim.

A weak one, at that.

Now for "real". That word is no different that the word "god". It is an abstract concept and has no perceptual referent. Real is no different than God. You either believe in real or not. I don't.

Nonsense.
Hold your imaginary subjective god over your head. Drop Him onto your head.
Hold a real objective rock over your head. Drop the real rock onto your head.

You will either believe or not.

 

[ecco]

Well, children at the age 11+ are not just children, they are at the beginning of forming their adult brains. For all I care, we can wait until 15-16, that is properly wiser.

However, that is not what religious parents do. They begin indoctrination from birth onward.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Activist atheists answer, no; parents should not be allowed to indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs. This is why all children should attend public school, so they can learn scientific rationality.

Certainly, some religious beliefs harm others, and these harms should be illegal. But is believing something untrue, and passing along the untruth to your children; does this constitute harming others?

Which is it:

- should they teach their religion?
- should they be allowed to teach their religion?

You asked both questions. They aren't the same. "Is this a bad idea?" does not necessarily have the same answer as "should we make this illegal?"

 

[ecco]

Science is only authoritative for the natural and objective. Not for the cultural, social and subjective.

You seem to feel that religions are better for teaching cultural and social aspects. Christianity teaches that it is permissible to own slaves. Islam teaches that it is acceptable to kill non-believers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Nonsense.
Hold your imaginary subjective god over your head. Drop Him onto your head.
Hold a real objective rock over your head. Drop the real rock onto your head.

You will either believe or not.

You are not good at philosophy. The result is the same regardless of a natural or supernatural Creator God as the first unmoved mover.
Objective reality is a belief. It is the basic of reason, logic and evidence and it is a fact, that you and I believe differently.
You can't see your own assumption as your belief. You can only see mine.
You take your subjective standard for evaluating different beliefs as objective and real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

However, that is not what religious parents do. They begin indoctrination from birth onward.

All parents indoctrinate. They just use different beliefs. Read some theory on learning on children.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to feel that religions are better for teaching cultural and social aspects. Christianity teaches that it is permissible to own slaves. Islam teaches that it is acceptable to kill non-believers.

You are not good at this. Religions are as subjective and diverse as non-religious world-views when it comes to cultural and social aspects.
Now we can do morality without coming close to God or objective morality. Do you want to do that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's refreshing you admit atheism can't be proven. Most atheists I've encountered seem pretty sure it's true.

I'm having trouble even parsing the phrase "atheism can't be proven."

Atheism is just not being convinced of any gods. What would "proving atheism" entail? Thinking about my own beliefs to confirm that none of them include belief in gods?

 

[ecco]

You are not good at this. Religions are as subjective and diverse as non-religious world-views when it comes to cultural and social aspects.
Now we can do morality without coming close to God or objective morality. Do you want to do that?

Let's see how good you are at this.

Define objective morality.
Give some examples of objective morality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's see how good you are at this.

Define objective morality.
Give some examples of objective morality.

That you can do this: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
Another way is to find a way to ground it in objective evidence.
Do you want actual examples?

Okay, that good and bad and right and wrong are out there in other humans, their behaviors and/or beliefs.
In general any objective morality centers it being independent of the person doing it.
Another variant is utilitarian and if you like better for the group.
Sam Harris used an indirect approach: Define harm in way we can all agree on and then let science do the rest.

Classical modern examples are the assumption of universal human rights. To some humans they are as natural as nature itself and thus objective. Property rights in modern western culture are to some objective.

Another variant is with reason and logic. Find something which follows from reason and logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Activist atheists answer, no; parents should not be allowed to indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs. This is why all children should attend public school, so they can learn scientific rationality.

Certainly, some religious beliefs harm others, and these harms should be illegal. But is believing something untrue, and passing along the untruth to your children; does this constitute harming others?

I think teaching false things is immoral.
I also think that holding false beliefs is going to be disadvantagous one way or the other, sooner or later.

As for the thread question, I would say yes. But in the same way we learn about Greek mythology for example.
I actually think mythology is very usefull on a psychological level.

But just like I believe that it is immoral for a magician to pretend to have actual magical powers (and thus not doing mere tricks), I think it's immoral to present mythology as anything other then mythology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Parents want good for their children. If parents are convinced their religion is good, they will teach their children accordingly. Is that bad?

It most certainly can be.

And I don't think you'll have to think for longer then 3 seconds to find examples in what ways it could be.
Because they are very common and happen all the time.