virgio

Will you or are you indoctrinating your children into atheism? From another message "My husband and I are currently trying to concieve another little infidel" -- How do you know it will be an infidel? This person is giving it '"free"thinker names' and is already *calling* it an infidel - doesn't this suggest future indoctrination into what that person believes? (So much for that whole free thought thing. I never really thought it applied exclusively to atheists/agnostics anyways).

What will -you- do with your child, if you have one? How will you ensure *true* freethought? (and not this My Way or the Intellectually Bankrupt Highway "freethought" that seems to present itself around here )

virgio

Arrowman

virgio, you ask some reasonable questions. Some points:

1. "How do you know it will be an infidel?" Because that's how humans are born - with no preconceived religious beliefs. Such beliefs are only acquired in later life.

2. Encouraging critical thinking, "thinking for yourself" in children is not "indoctrination" - it is imparting a vital life skill. Just like teaching them about contraception is not "encouraging them to have sex".

3. I am sure some people here would actively discourage their children from adopting a theistic view; for others, the most important thing is that the child learns critical thinking skills. It is possible to be a critical thinker and still have some religious or spiritual attitude (but, I grant you, not to be a fundamentalist theist!)

4. "Free thought" can be applied in a lot of areas - politics, for example - including some religious beliefs, so no, it is not necessarily the exclusive preserve of atheists/agnostics. And many people are "free thinkers" or "skeptics" in some areas, but not others. But I would have difficulty with the notion the free thinking is compatible with fundamentalist religion.

5. The "Intellectually Bankrupt Highway 'freethought'"? LOL. Since when is critical thinking intellectually bankrupt?

6. Some people [here] have had very negative experiences with religion and/or live in an area or society where fundamentalist anti-intellectualism is rampant. One can only expect those people to be anti-religion. Others (like me) have experienced only "moderate" or "social" religion and have a more neutral attitude. Probably neither of us is 100% right.

Now, on a personal note:

I was brought up in a "social religion" or "lip service" religious environment (Anglican). We didn't talk about God, pray or read the Bible outside of church. I never really believed any of it, I was never really successfully Assimilated by the Borg

My ex-wife's parents are regular church goers (also Anglican) and good people. My children attend church with them on alternate Sundays. My daughter has been confirmed and she doesn't take it all seriously. Noone expects me to take my children to church. I have no problem with this; they are normal, intelligent children with a father who promotes critical thinking without actively criticising religion or promoting atheism. The local Anglican church has no hope of converting them. Were my ex-in-laws fundies, and taking them to a Baptist church, life might more interesting for me.

Now - shock, horror - my children will be attending a Catholic school starting next year. It is a very good school in terms of educational standards, and I have atheist friends who have children there and are happy with it. It is affordable (gotta love the Catholic system!). Yes, there will be a religious flavour but they don't force the kids to attend Mass or anything (I don't know what percentage of the kids are actually Catholic but I'm guessing 50-60%). Most of the religion is wrapped up in charity and doing good stuff for the community (things which I am very happy for them to be involved in) more than "worshipping God".

I'm relaxed about this. My only alternative, given the absence of decent, affordable secular private schools where I live, is to leave them in the public system to get a lower quality education, just to "protect" them from any exposure to religion. Not a good trade-off.

Like I said, they're in no imminent danger of being converted.

A creationist once asked me in debate how I would feel if my children "grew up to be creationists" - would I feel I had failed them in some way? My answer - Not because they were religious per se, but certainly because I clearly had failed to teach them to think.

(NB Not equating Christianity with YECism here - just so we don't go off on a tangent)

Asked the same question about religion, I would answer similarly although perhaps less definitively.

Pur more precisely - I would be far less upset if my son grew up to be John Shelby Spong than if he grew up to be Pat Robertson or Ken Ham.

virgio

You seem to emenate, though certainly not as strongly, this 'Thinking in the way I think is the only form of "Thought"' attitude....

"1. "How do you know it will be an infidel?" Because that's how humans are born - with no preconceived religious beliefs. Such beliefs are only acquired in later life.

-- I really don't think that's a reasonable application of the definition. It's like calling my chair an infidel, or an atheist. I'll refrain from comparing your decision to a chair's "decision". I think it should be an active application. Point being, however, if the usage was just a "Look how atheist I can be" usage, fine. I read it as a statement of intended indoctrination.

2. Encouraging critical thinking, "thinking for yourself" in children is not "indoctrination" - it is imparting a vital life skill. Just like teaching them about contraception is not "encouraging them to have sex".

-- That depends on what you think entails teaching critical thinking skills. "Religion is full of lies. Here is how you should think." or "You have to say "Prove it" each time someone expresses a belief" is slanting the child towards an atheist mindset. That isn't freethought, or thinking for yourself. What if they use aesthetics instead of empiricism to determine the validity of certain claims? Are they suddenly not thinking for themselves? The indoctrination I spoke of comes in the way in which these ideals are taught. So "teaching critical thinking" could be indoctrination. (Well. technically, as soon as you teach them anything, it's indoctrination)

3. I am sure some people here would actively discourage their children from adopting a theistic view; for others, the most important thing is that the child learns critical thinking skills. It is possible to be a critical thinker and still have some religious or spiritual attitude (but, I grant you, not to be a fundamentalist theist!)

-- Why isn't it possible to be a fundamentalist theist (Um, do you mean a fundamentalist in a religion? You shouldn't equate 'theist' with 'religious'.) However, if you say that the most important thing is to teach them critical thinking skills, and that such skills (according to you) don't allow 'fundamentalist theistic beliefs', then that <b> would </b> be indoctrinating them to, at the least, not be 'fundamentally' theist.

4. "Free thought" can be applied in a lot of areas - politics, for example - including some religious beliefs, so no, it is not necessarily the exclusive preserve of atheists/agnostics. And many people are "free thinkers" or "skeptics" in some areas, but not others. But I would have difficulty with the notion the free thinking is compatible with fundamentalist religion.

-- Of course..That's because the term is being closely guarded by atheists to preserve the fraternity. I think many religious people are just as 'free thinking' as atheists. Or, if you prefer, I think that many atheists are just as 'bound' as religious people are in many respects. *shrugs* But I suppose that depends on your definition of 'freethought'. I may have to challenge that definition first.

5. The "Intellectually Bankrupt Highway 'freethought'"? LOL. Since when is critical thinking intellectually bankrupt?

-- That was a poorly constructed sentence. The meaning I was trying to convey was that many "Freethinkers" have the attitude that "You must think like I do, or you are Intellectually Bankrupt. *I* represent the standard of thought". Which is funny, given that pesky 'free' part in 'freethought'.

6. Some people [here] have had very negative experiences with religion and/or live in an area or society where fundamentalist anti-intellectualism is rampant. One can only expect those people to be anti-religion. Others (like me) have experienced only "moderate" or "social" religion and have a more neutral attitude. Probably neither of us is 100% right.

-- I can expect and perhaps understrand them being anti-religious. I can't agree with their reaction though. I've had negative experiences with a lot of things... I try very hard not to whitewash those things.

"Now - shock, horror - my children will be attending a Catholic school starting next year. It is a very good school in terms of educational standards, and I have atheist friends who have children there and are happy with it. It is affordable (gotta love the Catholic system!). Yes, there will be a religious flavour but they don't force the kids to attend Mass or anything (I don't know what percentage of the kids are actually Catholic but I'm guessing 50-60%). Most of the religion is wrapped up in charity and doing good stuff for the community (things which I am very happy for them to be involved in) more than "worshipping God"."

-- Just a note...Many consider those kind of activities as a form of 'worshipping God'. Shock, horror. ;-)

"A creationist once asked me in debate how I would feel if my children "grew up to be creationists" -would I feel I had failed them in some way? My answer - Not because they were religious per se, but certainly because I clearly had failed to teach them to think."

-- To think in the manner that you do. It's funny. Christians are often attacked because they claim an objective and ultimate morality. Atheists, on the other hand, claim an objective and ultimate intellectual attitude. :-)

So you do have a plan on how your children should think, and would actually failure if they do not think in this prescribed fashion. Does that not sound like indoctrination to you?

virgio

virgio

I forgot to mention something Arrowman. Thank you for making the distinction between, say, Spong and Robertson. Or Fundamentalism and theism. Or fundamentalist religionists and religionists. Some people seem to enjoy grouping all theists together. Your accuracy is appreciated.

virgio

Arrowman

You're welcome. Spong is a thinker, at least. I mean, I think he's wrong but at least he thinks.

There is much to say on your other response; I'll get back later.

Oh, just one thing further on this distinction, to further clarify my position (albeit I think you already get it). I have differing levels of disagreement with (and, yes, disdain for) different types of theism or spirituality.

- If someone says "I believe there is some sort of supreme spiritual entity in charge of the Universe" I'd be saying "Well, I don't share that belief but I can't really argue with it as a valid philosophical/spiritual position to take."
- But if someone says "I believe that the supreme being has given crystals healing powers" or "I believe that there was a global flood 4000 years ago and that there is evidence to support that" or "I believe there is a God as depicted in the Bible, and He intervenes in human affairs even today" then I will be jumping in!
- In other words, the more specific the claim, and the more it conflicts with the available evidence, the more loony and less tenable it becomes - and the more open to rebuttal and even ridicule.

Proverbs for the Skeptic:
- Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts.
- Not all beliefs are entitled to equal respect.
- Everyone is entitled to their beliefs; they are not necessarily entitled to have those beliefs taken seriously.

More later.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

virgio

There is an important and essential difference between disagreement and disdain. I don't understand the necessity, or the use, of ridicule.

virgio

Arrowman

Well actually I disagree quite strongly on the issue of "disagreement vs disdain" but to extend that discussion would distract from the main point of this thread. And it's not necessary to settle that point to discuss the others. So for the sake of this discussion I will settle for "disagree" and not insist on being able to "disdain" certain beliefs.

David Gould

If you think that teaching a child that evidence is the only criteria on which to base a decision/judgement/whatever is indoctrinitation, then I will indoctrinate my children.

I do not see it as indoctrination, however, because people can draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

If there is no evidence for something, you cannot make the conclusion in favour of it: either you reject it or you suspend judgement. I would prefer suspension of judgement until evidence is provided in favour of rejection. I am an atheist because there is no evidence in favour of the existence of God and evidence against the existence of God.

And you know what? As different evidence arrives, someone can change their opinion. So if enough evidence suddenly appears for the existence of God, my children will (if I have 'indoctrinated' them successfully) believe in the existence of God.

As to the idea that aesthetics might be a valid way of determining truth

Just becasue something is nice does not make it true. It would be nice if no-one died of starvation, after all...

Arrowman

Hello again virgio.

(oh, you're gonna wish you never started this; I know I'm starting to feel like I should never have got involved - oh well, I'm in a verbose mood today so here we go into the essay / novella )

1. On whether children are born atheist.

No no no, I strongly disagree with you. Atheism is not a "decision"; it is the default position. (OK, it is a "decision" for those who have deconverted from religion, but it is not necessarily a "decision") Atheism is the "absence of belief in gods". It is not a positive assertion. Your chair analogy is rather apt; chairs don't have a belief in gods, neither do newborn children. The difference being that chairs are not capable of acquiring beliefs; people are.

Unless you wish to assert that all children are infused with a knowledge of and belief in a god (in partiular the J-C God) at birth (a demonstrably false proposition) then surely you must accept that "children are born as atheists".

Note - I'm not asserting that children are born strong atheists - that they deny the existence of God - only that they are born without a belief in any god. You can't be born denying the existence of something you've never heard of!

You cannot "indoctrinate" someone into weak atheism; all you can do is fail to indoctrinate them into a religion.

2. On critical thinking, and "how to think".

Teaching critical thinking is no more indoctrination, or teaching children "what to think", than teaching them English grammar or mathematics (but unfortunately, nowhere near as prevalent in our education system). CT is a basic life skill. People who do not think critically are open to all manner of scams, con-artists and sometime downright dangerous (quack "medicine") beliefs.

Note - there is an important distinction between teaching children "how to think" (methods) and teaching them "what to think" (opinions and beliefs).

"Religion is full of lies. Here is how you should think." is not "critical thinking". Certainly, I may have an opinion about certain religious beliefs, and I may express those in discussion with my children (when we have such discussions; they're 10 and 12 now, and not yet into that sort of discussion) - as is my right as a parent - but I do not equate that sort of opinion / argument with the basic definition of "critical thinking".

"You have to say "Prove it" each time someone expresses a belief". And why not? What is wrong with that? Well I don't necessarily mean it as literally or simply as that, but what in heck is so wrong about teaching children to not blindly accept other people's beliefs as fact, without dissecting the reasons for that belief? I'm sure you'll agree that a good little critical thinker would not invest money in a scheme "just because they told me it would work". I'm afraid it is unavoidable that a "good little critical thinker" might question religious beliefs as closely.

"That isn't freethought, or thinking for yourself." Oh yes indeedy it is. Accepting other people's beliefs without any valid reason is the antithesis of critical thinking, and it's pretty close to opposite to free thought as well.

"What if they use aesthetics instead of empiricism to determine the validity of certain claims?" Well here you might have a point. While I am not at all religious or spiritual myself, I can, as I said in an earlier post, quite happily accept that some people might place importance on that aspect of life. And that is where (as you will no doubt have already determined) there is a small difference between financial scams and religion, and the application of critical thinking thereto. While I am sure you will agree with me that accepting financial advice on belief alone is never a good idea, it is much more a matter of personal opinion whether adopting a belief or faith in unseen supernatural forces (within reason!) is quite the same. Hence my Spong / Robertson dichotomy.

But I take issue with the "...validity of certain claims..." part of your sentence. Aesthetics can never be used to "determine the validity of a claim" - a thing is not true, or based on any reasonable logic or analysis, just because it makes you feel better. If my children grew up to believe in a god, I wouldn't necessarily have a big problem with that - if they grew up to believe that their belief or faith had the same grounding in logic as their belief that pyramid marketing is a bad thing to get into, then I'd have a problem.

3. On "fundamentalist theists" - Sorry, I wasn't clear but you did get my meaning. Yes, I do believe that it is not possible to be a 100% critical thinker and also a fundamentalist theist. Because fundamentalist theism requires you to discard way too much in the way of logic and rationality - compared, say, to the beliefs of a Spong.

Therefore - yes, I do believe if I successfully teach my children critical thinking, there is no way they could ever become fundamentalist theists. That is not indoctrination; it's just a fortunate side effect of their education.

What would you have me do? Avoid or water down teaching my children an important life skill, just to avoid the charge of "atheist indoctrination"?

4. On "free thought". Yes, I suppose you could say that many religious people (eg the Spongs of this world) are as "free thinking" as atheists, at least in a religious sense. But consider the words of another recent poster on this board (I will work from memory and paraphrase here):

You're talking about a group of people [theists] who from an early age have spent at least one hour every week in a room with hundreds of people, singing, chanting, bowing, kneeling and gesturing in unison, and reciting passages from an ancient manuscript ... and we're the ones who are brainwashed???

Just check out the Baptist Board some time. Have a look at the Women's and Youth forums in particular. Look at the posts from people asking "how long should I wear my hair?" "what does God want me to wear to church?" "Should I go to bars with my friends, even if I don't drink?" "Should I go to the movies?" ???!! and from others scrambling to the Bible to find the passages relevant to that part of their daily lives. Then come back and tell me what free thinkers they are. Oh, and while you're at it, count the Democrat voters on that board. Won't take long.

I'm sorry, even if I agreed with their religious beliefs, I'd never be able to use the words "free thought" to describe the process going on there.

5. On Free Thought and Intellectual Bankruptcy: OK, I see your point now. I disagree, but I think these issues are covered well enough elsewhere in this rather lengthy post.

6. On negative experiences and reactions - you said "I can expect and perhaps understrand them being anti-religious. I can't agree with their reaction though. I've had negative experiences with a lot of things... I try very hard not to whitewash those things."

If you grew up in a small town where everyone hated blacks and the KKK ruled the political / philosophical roost, and then moved away - would you allow that sort of thinking into your children's lives, just so you can avoid the accusation of "whitewashing" or being "open minded" or whatever?

Look - some of the people on this board probably think I'm an idiot for letting my children go to a Catholic school. I disagree, for reasons given in my earlier post. But I'm not going to accuse them of "whitewashing" or "being closed-minded" because they have chosen to keep their children away from something which has been an entirely negative influence in their own lives.

(There was a poster on the Baptist Board with whom I recently disagreed on the subject of alcohol consumption. He was a recovering alcoholic - said "I spent a good part of my life picking fights with thunderstorms and shouting at trees" well put! So he is vehemently opposed to alcohol consumption in any form. I think he's wrong, but hey - I can't really blame him.)

And to the final, as yet unnumbered points:

7. On "worshipping God" and charity: Yep, no problem. Saw the smiley. Let's not go there in this thread.

8. The final bit:
Me: A creationist once asked me in debate how I would feel if my children "grew up to be creationists" -would I feel I had failed them in some way? My answer - Not because they were religious per se, but certainly because I clearly had failed to teach them to think."
You: To think in the manner that you do. It's funny. Christians are often attacked because they claim an objective and ultimate morality. Atheists, on the other hand, claim an objective and ultimate intellectual attitude. :-)
So you do have a plan on how your children should think, and would actually failure if they do not think in this prescribed fashion. Does that not sound like indoctrination to you?

I do not necessarily claim an "objective and ultimate intellectual attitude" based on my atheism. Of course, I think I'm right to be an atheist but that's not quite the subject here.

By the way, you have (inadvertently, I'm sure) misquoted me here in a small but relevant way. In my original post I went on to say "Asked the same question about religion, I would answer similarly although perhaps less definitively. [my emphasis]
- Note: It is objectively demonstrable that a Young Earth Creationist is not capable of logical or critical thinking. And I would be quite entitled to claim that I "had not taught them to think". It is not necessarily as demonstrable that a religious person "cannot think". That is why I made the distinction.

Anyway - what I claim is that I have, and can teach my children, certain thinking skills which are objectively measurable as valuable and, yes, superior (to those who do not possess those skills). It's no more than saying "I can count and you can't". Of course I am "superior" to you in the area of mathematics.

No, I do not have a "plan on how my children should think" - I have a plan to ensure that they will gain certain thinking skills which are objectively measurable as being "superior". But we're talking about how to think - not what to think. I also happen to believe that having acquired those skills, they will almost certainly not become religious (or at least, fundamentalist). Like I said, that's just a beneficial side-effect!

(NB Edited to add the para just above, beginning "By the way, you have (inadvertently, I'm sure) misquoted me...")

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

tronvillain

Is someone going to move this thread out of SL&S?