BDS

It seems to me that respect for children suggests that we avoid spoiling their fun. That's why one would have to be a Scrooge to tell a kid, "There is no Santa Claus". The same holds true for God, in many respects. For example, suppose you were talking to a kid at a funeral, and he said, "My mommy says that grandpa is in heaven, with God. Is that true, Uncle Naked?"

"No! That's just a fairy story. There is no God, and gramps is being eaten by worms and maggots."

I think we'd all agree that's inappropriate, not because it violates the parents wishes, but because it traumatizes the kid. So, yes, it seems to me that honest questions from kids SHOULD sometimes be evaded. The trick is determining when those times are.

Zora

Sensitively presented in an age-appropriate way..I think a child's questions should be answered honestly. If you evade the question...("go ask your mother") you are giving credibility to the idea that your opinion is the "wrong" one and the Christian opinion is the "right" one. You might say "No, I don't believe in God, but I know most people do." Then you can ask "What do you think?" Children learn intolerance at the knees of their parents. The fact that atheists have been intimidated into thinking their opinion is less valuable is why we are in this mess. Perhaps you can point out a few people who believe differently (Buddha, Gandhi, or somebody you both know personally) and turn the discussion into one of tolerance of others' views.

If the issue were life after death, you might say "No, I don't believe we have a soul that goes to heaven. But I do know our bodies are made of water and other things that will become part of nature when we die....so in that way, I believe we will all be a part of the earth forever."

Kids are going to learn rather quickly that not everybody thinks the way their parents do.

Hazel-rah

Since I don't get along well with my sister-in-law, my nieces often ask me questions about topics I haven't vetted with her yet. My two favorite responses on subjects that I think might be tricky: "I don't know, what do you think?" and "Maybe that's something you could ask your mom about."

Cop-out, maybe, but it keeps the dinner table conversation at a civil tone. When they get old enough to recognize a dodge and press me for my own opinion, I'll know they're ready to hear it.

Naked Ape

You have summed up why I am not comfortable with evasion as an answer. I agree with the age-appropriate sensitivity. My first response with my neices and nephews to any question is: "What do you think?" Their answers to the reflected question give me clues as to the sort of detail and depth they are looking for.

I know this is classic projection, but when I was a kid, I lost respect for the adults that would not or could not answer my questions and resorted to authoritarian blandishments or evasions. There was never a more annoying non-answer to me than "Ask your parents." If I don't know, then the answer is: "I don't know."

When I was asked a question by my neice (8) on a topic (god) that my sister in law had asked me not to discuss with my neices and nephews, I told her: "Your mother has asked me not to speak about that with you." When she asked why not, I told her "I think it's because your mom disagrees with me, but you better ask her." This was not seen as an honorable answer by my sister in law. Too factual I suppose.

Cheers,

Naked Ape

Madkins007

First, let me remind the assemblage that we are talking about younger children, roughly the pre-school group, capable of asking questions (often very pointed and awkward questions!), but still not fully able to understand abstract concepts (math beyond the basics, money, politics, etc.)

My stance is that even when a child asks such questions, they do not have the mental tools to discuss, analyse abstractly, weigh opinion, etc. They operate in a pretty black and white world at this point.

I hold this stance based on personal experience with 4 kids of my own, discussions with my wife (a Kindergarten teacher with about 30 years of experience), and the studies of people such as Piaget.

Based on this, I would argue that parents have the right or the social obligation to try to raise the kids the best they can. Unless you are willing to take over this duty, their teachings should not be challenged TO THE CHILD. You can talk to the parents all you want, and you can call protective services if you think the children are at risk.

Some examples of this- if I think that a child of this age group should not watch R movies and have communicated this to you, I don't think it is right for you to show my child such a movie in my absence. If I am raising my child that there is (or is not) a Santa, I think it is wrong for you to tell them the opposite stance.

Let's use Santa as an example to take a small step away from the more emotionally charged issue of god.

In real life, we had Santa but joked about it and I tried to make sure my kids knew it was just a fun story. Say, however, we had raised little 5 year-old Timmy to believe that there was a Santa (probably out of tradition) and you knew we were doing this.

Timmy, in the course of a conversation, asks about Santa. You tell him there is no Santa and (through implication, tone, body language, whatever) imply that his parents had lied to him.

Timmy is now in a quandry. His parents lied? But he trusts his parents... Timmy, at 5, is unlikely to have the tools to figure that a.) it is just as likely that the new person lied, b.) that there are various kinds of lying, c.) to bring it up with his parnets for discussion, d.) to reconcile the differing views of his universe (if there is no Santa, who brought the toys? Who was that on TV?), etc.

It can be tough to know how to deal with direct questions- even as a parent. Issues like sex, the eternal 'whys', god, death, and more come up at this age and the child DOES certainly make use of the answers, even if only to settle his growing mind. However, a parent that sets Timmy down with the medical encylopedia and carefully covers every step and term in the reproductive process will quickly learn that Timmy doesn't really understand most of this and really only wanted enough information to get his mind past this particular issue.

(The old joke is the boy who asked his mom where he came from. She took a deep sigh, called in the dad, and the two carefully laid out the process to the child. When they were done and thouroughly red-faced, they asked if he had any questions. He said not really. He just wondered where he came from. His friend Freddie came fom Iowa.)

At this stage, the blend of 'real' vs. 'magical' thinking will drive you crazy. The idea of monsters in the room gets stuck in their mind and is difficult to drive out*. Opening doors, checking under the bed, etc. eases their mind right now, but reinforces the idea of the monster's existance.

As a parent, you just want to strangle whoever mentioned the ideas of monsters under the bed to the kid. As they get older, you can help them understand that the monsters are not real, but not at this stage- they just don't have the tools for that quite yet.




(*- there IS a school of thought that ONE source for the monsters bit is TV. This is one reason so many parents try to limit viewing, and often get ridiculed by others for it. Very frustrating.)


[Sorry- I've got to post this and run. It rambles a bit, but I will try to get back soon and complete/overhaul/tighten/focus this!]

FirstOffClub

Why does the child need to be thinking at an abstract level in order for the non-parent to give an honest answer? Out of respect for the child, and in order to not confuse him or her, I would answer the question honestly. If the child points to a banana that is obviously yellow in colour, and asks if the banana is orange in colour as his or her parents wanted their child to believe for some bizarre cultish reason, I would be impelled to tell the child that the colour is actually yellow. I would explain that humans in our society had to categorize and name colours in order to have better ease of communication. Language as well as science have well-grounded precepts and foundational rules. It’s reality.

If a parent tells a child that he or she can fly unaided, I would explain that no, gravity and lack of the proper genetics do not allow humans to fly unaided. That’s scientific fact, as is the fact that there is no scientific proof that there is a Big Sky Daddy. When we read Peter Pan to our children and they wonder whether they can fly or not too, well, we are always quick to dissuade them from that misconception, aren't we?

Is the sky blue? Yes, until we change colour names.

If the parents have been telling the child that money is evil, and will burn your lips if you bite it, I will show the child that money can be used for good purposes (to help out someone less fortunate eg. buy someone hungry a meal), and demonstrate that it does not burn your lips if you bite it. Those concepts are fairly concrete. If an atheist has to lie or evade an issue, most children are sensitive enough to notice. This also reflects poorly on the atheist's character as well as whether the child will trust him or her in the future.

To me, if the child is at the concrete stage, then it's a black and white issue. All the child needs is a concrete level of understanding in order for an atheist to answer the child’s sincere question honestly. All the child needs is to be able to understand it in the same way that he or she understands about opening and closing a door, falling down heights, or whether the sky is usually blue or not. Is there a Big Sky Daddy or not? No. There is not. Children already are learning about science at age 6, so an atheist can say that so far he or she has not seen or read of any scientific proof that there is a Big Sky Daddy. Perhaps an atheist mentioning scientific proof may be leading toward issues more abstract, but it is better for a person to stretch the child's mental capacities than to underestimate their capacities.

I believe the best educational mix is the maturationist theory of the different stages children go through (eg. Hall, and Gessell) as a flexible framework, but with interactionist ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner) as a dynamic overlay. Interactionist ecological theories are more recent and go beyond the purely maturationist, more limiting theories. The child interacts with the environment and significant others, they in turn react back in certain ways to that child's reaction, which in turn creates a flexible, response by the child with a unique effect upon the child. Thus, both the child, the environment and his or her significant others react in and are affected in unique ways.

The maturationist theories tend to be too structured and inflexible, such that “one size fits all�?. One size does not fit all, as Howard Gardner has shown with his 20 years of multiple intelligence research. Nowadays most school systems are under attack for not treating the child as an individual. Yes, maturationist theories can be used as a reference, but each child is an individual. Piaget himself was the precursor to renowned recent child developmental and educational psychologists Vygotsky and Bruner, from the constructivist school. They emphasize knowledge created through thought and experience with active learners constructing meaning. I would say that the child mentioned in the opening post seems like an active learner. The constructivist school emphasizes experimentation, discovery, and investigation. Teachers are to facilitate challenging thinking. If Piaget is being followed in schools in terms of his developmental, maturationist theories, then what about his more constructivist theories – why aren’t the schools following those too? What parent wouldn’t want investigation and challenging thinking for their child? Surely religious parents would want their child to be able to investigate different ideas and beliefs to then eventually arrive by his or her own volition at a belief or non-belief. If the child believes in god after investigation and challenging questions, then wouldn’t the parent applaud such a firm, hard-won belief?

The writer of the OP in the original thread was interacting with his nephew in a fluid way as suited the circumstances of the time; his knowledge of the child led him to believe that was the best way to respond to the child. I agree with the previous poster who wrote that you cannot shield the child from the world and its different ideas and theories. The religious parent has to have a system set up on how to handle outside influences. They took on a responsibility by bringing a child into the world -- not into a bubble. The onus for explanation is on them, not on the outside influences. The outside influences are simply there. Or perhaps their faith is too fragile to withstand outside influences? Perhaps they fear that faith in general is so vulnerable that it cannot withstand a small child being exposed to outside influences?

If a child asked a Buddhist the same question would you expect a Buddhist to lie or be evasive to the child about his or her own beliefs the same way you would expect an atheist to lie or be evasive?

What is your position on certain religious sects denying their children blood transfusions in life and death situations?

JCS

For example, suppose you were talking to a kid at a funeral, and he said, "My mommy says that grandpa is in heaven, with God. Is that true, Uncle Fundy?"
"No! God, doesnt allow Catholics, Atheists, gays, ect into heaven".
I think we'd all agree that's inappropriate, not because it violates the parents wishes, but because it traumatizes the kid. -(Sorry couldn't resist)

If the kids are at the point where they are formulating the questions, are they not at the point in which they should have answers qiven to them in terms they can understand? IMO it seems that evading sends the message, don't come to me for answers cause I won't give you any. So where will the kids get their answers, and how accurate will those answers be? Watching a couple of 4 year olds playing in the yard shows that even at that age they are exchanging information and ideas.

Unless the kid is living in a bubble under 24 hr surveillance look to siblings or playmates. I think this is why no question should be evaded or ignored. They won't stop asking the questions just because someone evaded or ignored it.

I'm not so sure. When my oldest son was almost 3, he thought there was a monster under the bed. We got a flashlight and showed him he had far to much junk-(toys)-under his bed, so there was no room for any monsters. Mom and dad 1 - Monsters 0.
If they are old enough to think monsters are there, aren't they are old enough to be shown that they are not.

FirstOffClub

So true, at my daughter's preschool, they did a lot of "talking amongst themselves" when their teachers weren't around. Things they talk about included whether or not there is a god, santa, true love, etc. Most children do not grow up in a bubble. Even if they are not at an "abstract level" yet, they still need to know which way is up and which way is down.

Madkins007

And reality is a concrete concept. It can be proven, demostrated, and agreed upon within reason. Such is not the case with the abstract concepts of the fiscal system, politics, religion, and so on.

There is no proof that there is no god force either- this is a central point of endless debate and discussion... and belief. By telling a child that there is no god, you are not teaching science, you are offering an opinion that you cannot directly back up- just as I cannot directly back up the existence of god.

Is the sky blue? Only in English, and only in cultures that have a word for that color (not all do, which is a fascinating issue all its own)- however, given that- sure. Every person with undamaged eyes and visual processing equipment can look and see and verify this fact. We cannot and do not all look and see and verify the presence or absence of god.

However, the god issue is only one part of my key point- what right is it of yours to tell my kids different in this sort of area?

Go to the parents, or child protective services. What would be the value of going to the small child? Now, as the kid gets older the rules change.

Ms. Siv

Contrary to what we popularly believe, children aint dumb. Far from it, in fact.

If you're talking < 5 years old, maybe (even then I would say that its more the "jargon" than the actual concepts that really confuse them) you're right ... but otherwise I dont agree.

Not really.
In fact, by presenting contradicting opinions, you only help prepare the child for the fact that the world is not black and white. And that different opinions are possible ... and you cant always easily classify them as right and wrong. Its good to get used to the idea that parents are not perfect.

Actually, I think we make too big a deal over the sanctity and influence of parents.
Children are, in reality, even from a very young age, far more concerned about their peers. Thats who they're going to grow up and spend most of their adult lives interacting with.
Peer influence is far more powerful than parental influence. Plus, kids are far more tougher than we think they are.

Like everyone else, they want to win the respect of their peers, and in order to do that they have to behave in a way that their peers find acceptable. If they behave in an unacceptable way when they're with their peers, they don't get a lecture, they don't get a time out, they get laughed at.
When a child does something wrong on the playground, her peers don't go, " What you did, Cathy, really disappointed us, and we hope you won't do it anymore." They go, " You shithead! " .

I think the whole fuss about treating your children with kid gloves is way over-rated. Its actually a combination of the blank slate plus the nurture assumption myth !