Should parents teach their children religion?

[tayla]

What is scientific rationality?

Logic and the scientific method as applied to the physical universe. As opposed to fictional stories of religions claimed as true.

 

[tayla]

before any of those atheists put their superiority cap on -- you accept subjective realities over real biological ones or empiric findings

I would guess most atheists accept science, and the knowledge and truth gained from it.

 

[tayla]

It's a topsy-turvy world we live in these days when the scientific community is more dogmatic than the preachers

My experience is that preachers teach things based on false creeds and doctrines; whereas, those accepting science believe things proven via the scientific method.

 

[tayla]

If you have a faith tradition, I think you are in your rights to teach your children your faith. I dread the day when the state can tell us what religions are acceptable and which aren't. We don't need to take a 500-year step backwards in progress.

Yes, but hopefully there will be no more religious wars, and rejection of scientific truths in favor of such things as young earth and global flood. And hopefully no one will seek to impose moral standards from religious scriptures on society.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logic and the scientific method as applied to the physical universe. As opposed to fictional stories of religions claimed as true.

That is still an act of trust:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

We trust the universe to be fair (no Boltzmann, trickster God, the Matrix, evil demon and what not) and thus that we can trust our reasoning and senses.
We don't know that. We take it on trust and that is the basis/assumption for knowledge. But no evidence, proof or truth can be given for that. It is the basis/assumption for evidence, proof and truth.

 

[tayla]

The truth/untruth of atheism can't be determined

I can't prove atheism, I can only rely on my own experience

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

 

[tayla]

I do see problems with any religions I am familiar with. I see man involved in what has been recorded, not God, in much of it. Religion is of man. Spirituality is of God(s).

Yes, this is my view also. I suppose it should be expected that religious people will teach that their religion is from God (and others aren't).

 

[tayla]

I would like to try to find ways to make critical thinking part of every child’s education. Whatever ways anyone has learned to influence the curriculum in public and private schools and home schooling, I would say to use those ways to try to make critical thinking, and healthy use of all our internal capacities, part of the curriculum.

Yes, this seems like the best solution. And to also oppose harmful teachings and practices by anybody.

 

[Nakosis]

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

I see truth and factual as two different things. At least in how the word "truth" is commonly used.

 

[syo]

parents should not be allowed to indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs.

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

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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?

Parents should protect their children. Parents should provide the basic necessities for their children. Parents should set examples for their children, by practicing what they preach. And, parents should teach children how to learn, and maintain their thirst for knowledge. Children should be able to grow up able to explain any truth claims they assert. Children should also be allowed to grow up with the honesty to say "I just don't know".

 

[ecco]

shoot ..... atheists indoctrinate their children totally .... indeed the religion they call no-religion is a religion

I hope you do not mean all atheists. Because that would be a lie. I never indoctrinated my children into atheistic beliefs. We celebrated Christmas and, when they were younger, had Easter egg hunts.

One grown child is an atheist married to an atheist. The other is a Christian married to a Christian.

 

[ecco]

Yes, but hopefully there will be no more religious wars, and rejection of scientific truths in favor of such things as young earth and global flood. And hopefully no one will seek to impose moral standards from religious scriptures on society.

There currently are religious conflicts happening all over the globe.

• The Philippines: Religious Conflict Resolution on Mindanao
• https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-cont...ias-Sunnis-religious-conflict-full-report.pdf
• https://atlantablackstar.com/2014/05/31/5-devastating-religious-conflicts-in-africa-that-will-make-you-question-all-you-thought-about-religion‏/

Impose religious morality...

• 8 times that a 10 Commandments monument had its day in court
• In Texas, even possession of a sex toy is regulated

You really need to keep up,

 

[ecco]

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

Everyone who believes in a God can name (maybe with the help of Google) 100's of gods that were/are created by man's imaginings. Everyone who believes in a god knows their God is the Real God. Everyone who believes in a God excludes their god from that list. Everyone who believes in a god knows the other gods are not real.

 

[SugarOcean]

No.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everyone who believes in a God can name (maybe with the help of Google) 100's of gods that were/are created by man's imaginings. Everyone who believes in a god knows their God is the Real God. Everyone who believes in a God excludes their god from that list. Everyone who believes in a god knows the other gods are not real.

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.

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

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

That is an odd way of framing it, and one that does not quite represent activist atheism as I understand it.

If anything, the current mistake is that of refusing to teach children about the actual variety of religious beliefs - if belief is even a proper word to use here.

Freedom of religion should be taught, and it involves clarification of the difference between proselitism and free adherence.

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?

When it comes to Abrahamic proselitism?

Heck yes. It very much does. In spades, and it is a great shame of our times.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is an odd way of framing it, and one that does not quite represent activist atheism as I understand it.

If anything, the current mistake is that of refusing to teach children about the actual variety of religious beliefs - if belief is even a proper word to use here.

Freedom of religion should be taught, and it involves clarification of the difference between proselitism and free adherence.

When it comes to Abrahamic proselitism?

Heck yes. It very much does. In spades, and it is a great shame of our times.

The challenge is as I see it, is if science is considered special or just another belief system. In other words I am all for teaching about the actual variety of beliefs and not just religious beliefs. That is a double standard, because it assume that science is a "better" belief system.
Freed of beliefs should be taught and includes non-religious belief systems. For the class of explaining reality, what ever that is that includes science, religion and philosophy.

 

[LuisDantas]

The challenge is as I see it, is if science is considered special or just another belief system.

I don't know what you mean by "special", but clearly science is no belief system, nor should it be treated as if it were one.

In other words I am all for teaching about the actual variety of beliefs and not just religious beliefs. That is a double standard, because it assume that science is a "better" belief system.

How so? Why would science be treated as any form of belief system, anyway?

Freed of beliefs should be taught and includes non-religious belief systems.

What would such a system be?

For the class of explaining reality, what ever that is that includes science, religion and philosophy.

Which role would religion have in such a class, and how could it be justified?

What would even be attempted by that?

I just don't see how that could be either constructive or truly possible, unless we commit the serious mistake of allowing indoctrination to contaminate the teaching environment and building some form of sectarian content to present to the children.

Otherwise, you would end up attempting for some inescrutable reason to tell children that Genesis somehow "explains reality", and so do the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the myths of Shinto, and some hundred other texts that clearly were never anything other than square pegs for such a round role.

There is simply no excuse to even consider doing such harm to children.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what you mean by "special", but clearly science is no belief system, nor should it be treated as if it were one.

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:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.

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.

How so? Why would science be treated as any form of belief system, anyway?

See above.

What would such a system be?

An introduction around the age of 11 to 16, properly at the high end of that range, to critical thinking and the limits of reason, logic, truth, evidence, proof and belief. Just as beliefs have a limit of what you can do with them, reason, logic, truth, evidence and proof have limits

Religion as a means of explaining reality? For children, no less? That is just not wise at all, and very dangerous indeed. No one should go anywhere near that.

Until the age of 11+, children should be taught be example to respect diversity and learn a civil
discourse. When they reach 11+, they can do abstract thinking and should be taught critical thinking.

Will this ever happen? Properly not, but you used education and I answered.