Individuality and personality psychology constitute an entire field within the social, psychological, and cognitive sciences. In particular this kind of speculation:
is largely untenable. Cognitive development is fundamentally shaped by upbringing and this includes how religion is viewed. The lenses through which we see the world, including things as basic as playing games (in the game theoretic sense) and sense of direction are influenced by how we are brought up and the language we speak. Religion is part of (to varying degrees) particular worldviews. But everyone has one and nobody chooses there own (not entirely). Rather, a central tenet of social & personality psychology is that most of the choices we make are influenced by the ways in which we were brought up via mechanisms we aren't aware of and are hard to determine. Cognitive psychology, largely because of neuroscience, is not as inclined to take into account external factors in the decision making process, but the work on language since the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was first established has definitely began to bleed more fully into cognitive sciences. With the influence of particular languages on cognitive functions comes the influence of culture and upbringing on cognitive processes as well.
This seems to me to be the sort of non-distinction as what we get in discussions of determinism and free-will; the fact that there is no
purely free or individual choice, in the sense that you're talking about, does not mean that more broadly speaking, engaging a young person in a critical dialogue in which they ultimately make the final evaluation gives them more control over the matter than teaching them authoritatively while they are in their early, developmental years.
Gains, benefits, good, bad, etc., only make sense within some framework. In game theory, a formalized version of morality, all benefits are beneficial only if they are defined as such first. Short of knowledge of some objective morality (whatever that might be), what benefits there are always are all dependent on what we believe to be beneficial in the first place.
Sure. And as with all value-judgments, we often come to a point where the disagreement is intractable;
Person A: "I value this",
Person B: "Yeah well, I do not"
But given a framework, given certain values, then some sort of calculus can be performed (which is why I said that
if you value personal freedom and self-determination, which most do, then XYZ follows).
Personally, if one wants to raise children religious I find this no better or worse than the opposite
Depends- if by "the opposite' one means atheism or an anti-religious outlook, then I absolutely agree. If young children shouldn't be indoctrinated with religion, that cuts both ways. But it would seem that simply letting the matter be (or, answering questions that arise in a "well, some people believe X, we believe Y" sort of manner) until the child is at least old enough to comprehend the relevant concepts (as young children are not)
is better than the alternative, for the reasons mentioned.
but I do hope that parents would at least try to occasionally play devils advocate to try to get their children to think critically.
Indeed. That's one of the most critical pieces here- a piece that is lacking, I think, in most people's religious upbringing.
I acknowledge, however, that this may be because that's how I was raised.
As well as the larger socio-cultural context in which you find yourself- I get that. But we are always going to be situated in such a context- there is no pure birds-eye-view on the matter.
The entirety of the sciences owe their debt to a particular religious worldview.
Well, not
only one particular religious view- the entirety of the sciences has been
heavily influenced by ancient religion/mysticism/ancient philosophy, Christianity, and Islam, at various points in its development. Each has been crucial for science being what it is today. And if the proto-science evolutionary notion of religion is correct, it owes more than that.
But I just don't see what bearing this has on the present topic.
In any case, good contributions, even if I don't entirely agree (although that seems about par for the course between you and I).