Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Other Michael · 07-31-2002, 10:24 AM

A thread in the Philosophy forum mentioned this very interesting <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html" target="_blank">lecture by Nicolas Humphrey</a> on this topic.

I'd imagine that many here will quite agree with him but it might make for some interesting conversation.

cheers,
Michael

Laurentius · 07-31-2002, 12:00 PM

Parents often choose to procreate or adopt children exactly because they would like to see their worldviews and principles perpetuated.

Despite the ignorance that many ideologies propagate, this state of affairs is a price that has to be paid for cultural diversity to ensure there is an adequate number of ideatic solutions for any situation mankind might get through.

AVE

The Other Michael · 07-31-2002, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
Despite the ignorance that many ideologies propagate, this state of affairs is a price that has to be paid for cultural diversity to ensure there is an adequate number of ideatic solutions for any situation mankind might get through.

Hi Laurentius,

If you read Humphrey's lecture he addresses that point, and I think deals with it pretty well.

cheers,
Michael

The AntiChris · 07-31-2002, 01:56 PM

The lecture is an interesting take on the "morality" of parents' rights to inculcate religious beliefs in their children.

It certainly reinforces my personal belief that it's morally indefensible to tolerate or respect religious belief.

Chris

Tom Sawyer · 07-31-2002, 02:16 PM

I think it's not the right of anyone to tell parents how they should raise their kids. The kids are their children and they should be aloud to bring them up in whatever manner they choose. As long as they don't hurt them - and I've never seen it proven that belief in a religion actually hurts somebody - then they should be free to do as they choose.

The children can make their own choices when they grow up and although the majority of them will simply continue to believe what their parents told them to believe, it's not the place of the government (because who else would enforce this rule) to tell people how they should raise their children.

Obviously, I'm not talking about situations like when parents would rather have their kids die than receive a blood transfusion or anything stupud like that, but how a parent chooses to raise their child is nobody's business but their own.

The Other Michael · 07-31-2002, 07:27 PM

Hi peteyeh,

Did you read the referenced article? It covers a number of your objections.

And as to religion not hurting anyone, I think I could probably round up a fair number of people off this board who'd take exception to that, on both the physical and mental aspects of being hurt.

Also, if you indoctrinate the child and isolate it from society (think Amish and some fundy sects) there is no assurance they'll ever have a chance to get the information that will allow them to see the misinformation they've been fed. And even if they are exposed to the information, they may be so rigid in their programming that they can't process that info.

cheers,
Michael

Laurentius · 08-01-2002, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael: If you read Humphrey's lecture he addresses that point, and I think deals with it pretty well.

A democratic, secular society resembles a superior animal, whose decisions often ground on intelligent resoning and conscious deliberation.

I think such organism can only emerge and develop from the survival-of-the-fittest competition ensured by cultural diversity, mo matter how preposterous prejudices within cultures can be.

AVE

The Other Michael · 08-01-2002, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
I think such organism can only emerge and develop from the survival-of-the-fittest competition ensured by cultural diversity, mo matter how preposterous prejudices within cultures can be.

Hi Laurentius,

It seems to me then that the logical end of your preposition is there being a single, most fit, culture, and therefore no cultural diversity at all.

Humphrey wasn't advocating preventing people making rational choices of their own volition once they've matured, just preventing the imposition of the irrational upon children.

Did you read the article? He really did discuss this in some detail.

cheers,
Michael

snatchbalance · 08-01-2002, 04:52 PM

Laurentius,

Quote:

I think such organism can only emerge and develop from the survival-of-the-fittest competition ensured by cultural diversity, mo matter how preposterous prejudices within cultures can be.

Yes, one never knows where inspiration will arive from. But all in all, a scientific way of viewing the world certainly seems to lead to the most correct answers about the world.

Why should one promote or condone the inferior?

sb

scumble · 08-02-2002, 12:35 AM

When Christians talk about free will existing so people can choose God, how does this square with the times they will tell them God created the world, that Jesus rose from the dead and so on?
Can any Christian parent claim their children were able to "choose"?
Basically, that's the worst thing about indoctrination. Children don't have a choice in what's hammered into their brain. "Mental circumcision"
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Peter Carr, in a fatherly way:

Quote:

Religion: Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

He might have been more of a Deist, but this seems the right way to go about things.
More of the letter <a href="http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&act=text&offset=5653533&textreg=1&query =god" target="_blank">here</a>

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: scumble ]

07-31-2002, 10:24 AM	#1
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	The morality of parents indoctrinating their children A thread in the Philosophy forum mentioned this very interesting <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html" target="_blank">lecture by Nicolas Humphrey</a> on this topic. I'd imagine that many here will quite agree with him but it might make for some interesting conversation. cheers, Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2002, 12:00 PM	#2
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Parents often choose to procreate or adopt children exactly because they would like to see their worldviews and principles perpetuated. Despite the ignorance that many ideologies propagate, this state of affairs is a price that has to be paid for cultural diversity to ensure there is an adequate number of ideatic solutions for any situation mankind might get through. AVE

07-31-2002, 01:56 PM	#4
The AntiChris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 5,932	The lecture is an interesting take on the "morality" of parents' rights to inculcate religious beliefs in their children. It certainly reinforces my personal belief that it's morally indefensible to tolerate or respect religious belief. Chris

07-31-2002, 02:16 PM	#5
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	I think it's not the right of anyone to tell parents how they should raise their kids. The kids are their children and they should be aloud to bring them up in whatever manner they choose. As long as they don't hurt them - and I've never seen it proven that belief in a religion actually hurts somebody - then they should be free to do as they choose. The children can make their own choices when they grow up and although the majority of them will simply continue to believe what their parents told them to believe, it's not the place of the government (because who else would enforce this rule) to tell people how they should raise their children. Obviously, I'm not talking about situations like when parents would rather have their kids die than receive a blood transfusion or anything stupud like that, but how a parent chooses to raise their child is nobody's business but their own.

07-31-2002, 07:27 PM	#6
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Hi peteyeh, Did you read the referenced article? It covers a number of your objections. And as to religion not hurting anyone, I think I could probably round up a fair number of people off this board who'd take exception to that, on both the physical and mental aspects of being hurt. Also, if you indoctrinate the child and isolate it from society (think Amish and some fundy sects) there is no assurance they'll ever have a chance to get the information that will allow them to see the misinformation they've been fed. And even if they are exposed to the information, they may be so rigid in their programming that they can't process that info. cheers, Michael

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.