DMB

I am sure that many theists would claim that we indoctrinate our children with atheism.

I don't believe that parents can help passing on their own views to their children. Of course, how they do this is what matters. I am sure that few of us would claim that all atheists are intelligent, rational or tolerant. But in my experience a lot of atheists are. This means that they don't claim a monopoly on truth or certainty on most issues. I think the most helpful thing you can do for children is to introduce them to critical thinking. When they ask a question, don't pretend omniscience. Let them observe the process whereby you search for an adequate answer. Admit it if you can't find a definitive answer. Let them loose on libraries and let them read things you don't agree with.

Some theists will take that approach with their children, while others will try to deny them access to sources of knowledge other than those of their particular cult.

But I don't think you can blame a theist for telling a small child who asks where Grandpa's gone that Grandpa is in heaven with God. It's much harder to give a comprehensible naturalistic explanation to a small child, and most theists don't easily make a distinction between beliefs of this kind and beliefs of the type that explains a year as the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.

scumble

Perhaps there's a limit to what one should attempt to explain to young children.

ManM

The Other Michael,
That article is now on top of my 'thoroughly disturbing' list. Science provides no reliable truth. We certainly have theories, but we have no guarantee they are the Truth (TM). We only accept them pragmatically. Shall we indoctrinate our children in a method that has no chance of determining truth? Well let's look at Nicholas Humphrey's answer:

But this statement alone is laced with belief. It assumes that the process of creating theories and then interpreting the world is in fact a reliable method for determining truth. I do not agree with that, and so this amounts to Nicholas Humphrey indoctrinating my children with his beliefs. How then is he being any more moral than those he challenges?

snatchbalance

MannM,

I don't think Humphrey is promoting science as a way to find TRUTH. Science provides way to learn things about the world we live in. It is hard to argue that it has not been the most successful method developed to date.

If you can form a more accurate picture of the world, you can arrive at your own sence of truth.

SB

ManM

snatchbalance,
Learning the truth is not synonymous with learning things about the world we live in? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Laurentius

Science provides no reliable truth. !!!

When science states something about gravity, for instance, and launching a satellite succeeds particularly thanks to this knowledge, I wonder how can one have the brass to state that science provides no reliable truth...

What kind of reliable truth does a biblical paragraph such as the one below hold then?

(Genesis 1:7)
God made the expanse [or firmament], and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

What does truth mean after all? Pure faith? Because that's what Christians keep saying: "Put your trust in God and you'll discover him."
That is your faith is the only reliable criterion for truth.

Well, spare me with this kind of truth. I'll stay with Thomas.

snatchbalance

MannM,

Well, some things are so well documented that they can be considered to be facts. Other things exist within a spectrum of probabilities, from very likely, to very speculative.

for example, it is true that the earth revolves around the sun. This fact has been long established.

Other aspects of our knowledge, say the "big bang theory", are less well established.

Science provides a means of evaluating the relative probabilities of various exaplanations for different phenomenon.

If a scientist, if he's(or she)is honest, offers an explanation for an anamoly, it is not a lie if subsequantly he is proved to be wrong. This is one of the methods by which our knowledge advances.

I'm not sure what kind of "truth" you're looking for.

sb

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Brian63

TOM,

Thanks for posting that article. It was pretty good I believe, although I am partially sympathetic with ManM's objection.

ManM,

We meet again.

I wonder if you would have an objection to the following or if it would appease you.

Suppose that instead of society (through the mechanism of public school teachers, for instance) telling children (younger than 7, as the article indicates IIRC) that science provides us with TRUTH, we could tell them the following:

"Johnny, here is what the world was like before science [and then the person/teacher shows how in the Middle Ages and ancient times diseases were believed to be developed/spread/cured, what the different alignments of the stars and planets were believed to signify, etc. and described the overall relatively poor standard of living that coincided with these beliefs].

Now Johnny, here is what the world is like after science [and then the person/teacher describes more modern theories of how diseases are believed to be developed/spread/cured, about the enormous number of stars, galaxies, etc. in our universe and then describes the current higher standard of living, etc.].

Johnny, draw your own conclusions."

That way, we would not be indoctrinating children with the impression that science gives us TRUE accounts of the world (a highly debatable topic in the philosophy of science, as far as I can tell). We would instead be presenting FACTS, indicating that science has helped humanity throughout history and made possible all sorts of new achievements.

Anyhow, I do not think it would be of much use to tell a child all of the progress that science has helped us achieve, and then tell them that science is only pragmatic but not necessarily true. A 7-year-old probably would not understand the subtle (but important!) difference between the two in relation to the philosophy of science. When they are older it may make more sense, but not at such a young age.

So, even though we cannot be sure that science provides us with a TRUE description of the world, we should be telling them about all the benefits that have been derived from science in the last several hundred years (and then the kid would figure out the rest themselves).

Brian

The Other Michael

Don't necessarily teach young children "science" (facts), but rather the scientific method and outlook.

Instead of giving them tautologies such as "this is true because our holy book says it is true and our holy book never lies because it says it never lies" teach them how to think for themselves.

cheers,
Michael

emphryio

Semantics concerning the word "indoctrinate" are of much importance here.