Should parents teach their children religion?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly, some religious beliefs harm others, and these harms should be illegal.

Out of curiosity: do you actually believe this?

Many mainstream religions do a tremendous amount of harm. For instance, consider the sheer number of LGBTQ kids who are driven to suicide or homelessness by various Christian denominations. Do you think we should be making them - or at least their anti-LGBTQ attitudes - illegal?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Out of curiosity: do you actually believe this?

Many mainstream religions do a tremendous amount of harm. For instance, consider the sheer number of LGBTQ kids who are driven to suicide or homelessness by various Christian denominations. Do you think we should be making them - or at least their anti-LGBTQ attitudes - illegal?

I think they should be given the exact same treatment as racists. Both socially as well as legally.

 

[Cooky]

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?

All 4 of my children were baptized as infants, and recieved / will recieve Catholic education as children so that they can recieve the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion.

...Just like I did.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All 4 of my children were baptized as infants, and recieved / will recieve Catholic education as children so that they can recieve the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion.

...Just like I did.

My ex was a Catholic. While we never had kids, we tried for a while and had a number of discussions about raising them.

When it came to baptism - and especially the Church's teachings about the need for baptism - I had some major issues. The ritual with the water seemed a bit silly but harmless, but I realized that I wouldn't be able to stand in front of my friends and family to tacitly support the idea that my innocent newborn baby was so evil that we couldn't rule out the possibility that a wise and merciful God might be justified in thinking that they deserved to be tortured forever for how evil they were (this necessitating the magic ritual to "wash" the evil away).

I ended up telling my (now ex-) wife that while I wouldn't stop her from getting any kids we had baptized, I'd have no part of it and wouldn't attend.

 

[ecco]

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.

Is that supposed to be your version of a definition? Well, it is not a definition. Care to try again?

Do you want actual examples?

That is one of the two things I asked for.

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.

Confused nonsense. It can't be both "independent of the person" and "better for the group". The Group is just persons.

Also, if it's better for The Group, it isn't necessarily better for people in other groups. Therefore it fails the "objective" test.

Sam Harris used an indirect approach: Define harm in way we can all agree on and then let science do the rest.

I am not having a discussion with Sam Harris. I asked for your views.

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.

Really?

• the assumption of universal human rights?
• Property rights?
• something which follows from reason and logic?

You need to understand the meaning of the word "objective".

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/

adjective

1. 1.
   not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

[ecco]

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.

Magicians rarely say they have "actual magical powers". Some members of audiences come to those conclusions on their own*.

Con artists, on the other hand, do try to convince their audiences/followers that they have "actual magical powers".


* Years ago I got a little old book showing how Houdini did some of his tricks. In one part of the book, the author relates a short example of Houdini's "sway" over some people.

During a show in New York, Houdini put needles and thread into his mouth and then pulled out the thread with the needles being threaded. Two people coming out of the show:

• Ed: That was amazing how Houdini could thread those needles in his mouth with just his tongue.
• Tom: Nah. That's just a magic trick. Actually, you can buy that at The Little Magic Shoppe just down the street.
• Ed: Yeah. I know. But Houdini doesn't use cheap tricks. He actually threads the needles in his mouth.

 

[ecco]

All 4 of my children were baptized as infants, and recieved / will recieve Catholic education as children so that they can recieve the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion.

...Just like I did.

We'll take that as your answer to the question posed in the OP:
Should parents teach their children religion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is that supposed to be your version of a definition? Well, it is not a definition. Care to try again?
...

You had a point and I will give you that.

Now here is another approach:

• What exactly are people doing when they use moral words such as “good” and “right”?
• What precisely is a moral value in the first place, and are such values similar to other familiar sorts of entities, such as objects and properties?
• Where do moral values come from—what is their source and foundation?
• Are some things morally right or wrong for all people at all times, or does morality instead vary from person to person, context to context, or culture to culture?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/metaethi/

Depending on how people answer these question you can classify different categories, one being if the answer imply an objective foundation.
I.e. wrong corresponds to a thing or the property of a thing, like the cat is black. Just like the fact that a cat is black, killing is wrong.
Or right is the same or all people at all times.

I should just have used this link.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Seems strawmannish, but to answer the thread question - seeing as how it is likely the primary way that religion is promulgated, I really wish they wouldn't. ALL of the religious parents I know more or less force their beliefs onto their kids.
NONE of the non-religious parents I know do the same (small sample size, to be sure).
I allowed my kids to go to church and church group with their friends. Not having been force-fed religious tales prior to this, they were getting it all blank-slate style, and all on their own, they saw it for what it is.

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?

It can. Abortion clinic shootings and bombings have all been religiously motivated. Refusal to accept climate change is religio-politically motivated. Disdain for conservation efforts is primarily religion-politucally motivated - listen to the garbage Inhofe and his ilk spew.

 

[ecco]

You had a point and I will give you that.

Now here is another approach:

• What exactly are people doing when they use moral words such as “good” and “right”?
• What precisely is a moral value in the first place, and are such values similar to other familiar sorts of entities, such as objects and properties?
• Where do moral values come from—what is their source and foundation?
• Are some things morally right or wrong for all people at all times, or does morality instead vary from person to person, context to context, or culture to culture?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/metaethi/

Depending on how people answer these question you can classify different categories, one being if the answer imply an objective foundation.
I.e. wrong corresponds to a thing or the property of a thing, like the cat is black. Just like the fact that a cat is black, killing is wrong.
Or right is the same or all people at all times.

I should just have used this link.

Let's see how good you are at this.

Define objective morality.
Give some examples of objective morality.

Still waiting.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still waiting.

Yeah, you do that.
You gave the definition of objective, I didn't and I then gave you some questions, which can help you spot objective morality depending on the answer. So what should I give you the definition, when you gave it? I didn't give a good answer. You pointed it out and I accepted it.