Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
Explain how.
I don't think everyone is saying that. I think most people are trying to say that children should be of a certain age before they start to choose what to believe in. Then it's fine for them to choose Christianity or Atheism or whatever.
Moreoever, how is not teaching religion irrational? If anything, it's more rational. The mind of a child is already beset with imagination and fictitious stories. If you're going to add religion to the concoction, better to open with "Once upon a time."
Not even the Catholics believed this before they changed the doctrine.
Also, I have yet to see someone suggest how we go about not teaching children religion.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Hmm. How about this, then?
It is wrong to, exploiting the youth and impressionability of a child, to indoctrinate them in any belief to the degree that it would be impossible for them to be rational with respect to that belief later in life, unless this is absolutely necessary for that child's behavior in society.
In that sense, there's nothing wrong with teaching religion, if you are teaching religion in the same way you'd teach science or history. But there is something wrong with teaching religion as something to be unthinkingly devoted to.
trentsteel we don't give children the choice of what to believe in. We teach them. We teach them religion just like we teach them tolerence, logic, rational thinking, and morality. Whether they like it or not. As they grow older and gain in understanding we allow them to make their own choices, but that doesn't mean we stay hush on these subjects before then. No one would ever suggest to not teach their children racism is wrong until they are old enough to decide for themselves.
--LeVar Burton
There's a problem with putting it even on the same plane as science or history. Especially when the subjects contradict on some fundamental ideas. Which perspective takes precedence? Teach them morals, yes. In the context of faith, perhaps. But the more mythological aspects of a religion should remain strictly in the realm of fiction, attributed no more credibility than one would grant Snow White, Huckleberry Finn or Glenn Beck.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Instead of saying, "Believe this, my son!" say, "Well, my son, a lot of people believe this...and some people believe this, and others believe this...now I happen to believe this, but I encourage you to make up your own mind."
I'm all in favor of comparative religion classes (and logic classes!) for kids as early as possible.
I would propose two benchmarks for, "No, that's not fucking okay! That's creepy cult shit!"
1. When you start hurting people for your faith, or justifying harm to others based on faith. There can be no compromise on this- intolerance and religious bigotry are never fucking acceptable, I don't care if you've got a two-thousand year old pedigree for hating Jews, you can't hate Jews or teach hating Jews. Or Gays. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Sunnis. Or Shiites. Or Pagans....
Well, obviously you can, but you damn well should not.
2. When you start programming, rather than educating. It's a fine line, difficult to spot, but you basically have to refrain from installing a belief that is defined as being immune to rational analysis ,skepticism, or doubt. If at any point you teach your child that it is okay to question X and Y but not Z, you've run into trouble. Ideas should be accepted or discarded because of their merit or lack thereof, not because they are regarded as unquestionable.
Neither of these conditions is all that onerous, since the majority of people I've ever met were either raised under or raised their kids based on these basic ideas.
Where the more dubious elements are concerned.
Phobos, the belief that we should teach religion alongside science seems eerily on par with teaching creationism and evolution, which is alright as long as you keep the realms separate. You wouldn't introduce a Biblical perspective into a science class any more than you would bring a biology textbook into church.
I wasn't talking about schools. Or at least, everyone is implying that it's not really schools that are a problem. (Currently, schools are not the problem.)
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
If we're talking about a stage in a child's development prior to scholastic education, we're looking at ages 2-3. At this stage, why would you teach them either science or religion or history or anything too complex for their minds to comprehend in the first place?
Oh, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I definitely oppose teaching religion alongside science. Teach it like we teach it in college, you know, not as if it was indisputable fact, but that it was and is an element of our culture and society that is very important, for better or for worse.
Then there is no debate, at least from me. Religions are absolutely an integral part of our history and cultural identity, and should be taught accordingly. Refusing to educate our children about their very existence would not only be irresponsible, but seems rather impossible given the breadth of their influence on societies past and present.
--LeVar Burton
As long as you confine it to areas of ethical and philosophical discourse.
Teaching that Christ taught empathy, peace and tolerance - Green Light.
Teaching that Christ was the son of God who died on a crucifix for the sins of humanity - Yellow Light.
Teaching that God created all life instantaneously, that evolution is no more credible than creationism or "intelligent design" and that all other faiths got it wrong - No One Escapes the Spanish Inquisition.
Now see, most parents don't. It all depends on the social environment. More "faithful" people will not, in any way, teach their children to question, mostly because they weren't taught to question either.
Thats the whole basis of sects and those hardcore christian churches.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
Why on God's green earth would you confine it to areas of ethical and philosophical discoure, except of course for the fact that Glyph doesn't believe these things, and wishes no one else would either?
edit: Yes Ferrus, but that doesn't mean you get to attribute the flaws of religious people to religion itself, just because you disagree with it. Otherwise I could lay the actions of communism at the door of every atheist I meet. Which would be really really silly.
--LeVar Burton
You're right. They should also apply it on physics and chemistry exams. That'll be great for them, and I'm sure they'll get top marks.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
--LeVar Burton
What are you babbling about? Tolerance is not the same thing as believing in a religion.
And you dont need to be indoctrinated to believe racism is bad.
Indeed. I cant imagine an average believing christian do that.
Meanwhile, an agnostics life-wiew is pretty much based on the fact that he cant prove that god exists, or doesent exist.
To question is pretty much what he believes in.
--LeVar Burton
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
--LeVar Burton
That's what I got from that post. That and that religion isn't justification to force people into submission (i.e; it's for ethical and philosophical discourse, for you to think about the truth and the best way to treat others and to discuss it with other people, it should not be taught as having force of law outside of the spiritual realms of being, thought and discussion).
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
And no that's not what Glyph was saying. He was saying it is Ok to have a conversation with your child about religion, as long as you don't teach them your particular religion is the what they should beleive. Which is stupid. I think I'm done here. I can't take this specious crap anymore.
--LeVar Burton
I don't know about that. Religion doesn't do anything divorced from people; it's not an independent actor. You can talk about how people have handled the idea of religion as a critique of the idea of religion itself, since the two are not distinguishable.
Likewise, you'd be perfectly in your right to talk about the flaws of Communism in principle by illustrating how Communism worked in practice, because how it actually works out when people try to put it into practice is the only time it is actually "real."
Of course, you can't really talk about atheism or atheists by talking about Communism, for obvious reasons. The two are significantly disconnected in practice and in principle. (Communists are typically atheists, but their atheism is a byproduct of Communism, so the causative factor is Communism, not atheism)
Likewise, it'd be foolish to blame Imperialism on Religion- Imperialists used religious justification for what they did, but the causative factor was imperialist ambition.
Mental Exercise, I'm sorry you've left the thread, because I think that last flamey exchange was mostly people talking past each other, rather than legitimate disagreement.
--LeVar Burton
By "behavior", you mean the abusive indoctrination techniques like Jesus Camp? I'd not be opposed to a psychological explanation, perhaps the parents desire to "control" something as significant in their lives as their children manifests itself through religious indoctrination. That's entirely possible, at least in some cases.
But I think it'd be a stretch to argue that religious belief does not in some way contribute, since in the absence of that belief there would exist no justification for extreme measures.
There probably never will be. There might be societies that are predominantly atheist emerging in the future, but I think religious faith fills a niche in the human psyche that is too potent a survival strategy to die out.
Indeed, as with certain modern Catholic communities and practices. I think we must make a distinction we haven't made yet- the difference between religious belief and religious...practice? Community awareness? I can't think of a good word to describe the idea of religions being a way of bringing people together. One argument in favor of going to church is that in small communities, it was a way of maintaining and strengthening group bonds. There are "Jewish Atheists", in that they do not believe in God but associate with the Jewish cultural identity.
So long as these communities, or group identities, do not declare themselves in opposition to others, I have no qualm with them, or raising one's children as part of them. That's pretty normal and a vital element of socialization. It's not really any different from sending them to the Boy or Girl Scouts.
The trouble is some of the negative effects of certain religious dogmas get transmitted through this sort of gathering. Depending on the troop, the Boy Scouts might transmit homophobia. Conservative Jews might transmit the idea that it is somehow unacceptable to marry a non-Jew (which, while not "evil", is...silly. Marry whom you love!). This is fairly easily prevented by making sure a child is part of several communities at once- I had non-Catholic friends as a child, had other clubs and activities, and was otherwise exposed to a world outside of Catholicism.
I don't really begrudge being a part of my local Catholic community, because I met people there, did enjoyable things (though more often very boring things). What I disliked was the efforts at reinforcing or exaggerating my beliefs, which usually came from the more bigoted and extreme members of the group.
I still don't like the idea of identifying with J.Random Catholic more so than I might identify with J. Random Anyone Else, but people need a way of narrowing down their social lives, meeting others in situations of common interest and experience, and religious groups are a fine way to do that, if they are more interested in that social experience than they are with indoctrination.
In fact, most people of faith I've ever met were reasonable people. I mean, of course they were wrong about the God thing, but then again I really liked the "Hulk" movie, so we're all wrong about something. There is something different about the fanatic, whose faith is the some totality of their reason for existence, and the moderate, whose faith is tempered by reason, compassion and other interests. So you are correct- this discussion should perhaps move towards figuring out what sets apart "poisonous faith" with "healthy faith."
I firmly believe that if there was a God, he'd want more out of his creations than constant devotion, prayer, etc. He wouldn't want Monks or flagellants or even priests, necessarily- he'd want people to do stuff. Just like a good parent wants their kids to be happy, to have interests and passions and independent thoughts. Hell, I don't think a benevolent God would want to be worshiped; that strikes me as remarkably egotistical for a higher being.
--LeVar Burton
If I were going to refuse compromise, then sure, taking your kid to a Catholic after-school dinner is just as bad as beating him with a flail if he masturbates. But, honestly, not even Dawkins is that extreme. (EDIT: I' not saying Loren is, either, since I have no idea where he stands on these things, coming into the discussion late.)
What matters, really, is the pressure involved. If you're trying to force religion on someone, punishing them for it, pressuring them into it, deceiving them or abusing them into it...you have a problem. A religion should be something a person comes into freely, and you can't really have that if you shove it down the throat of a child.
Some of your more fanatical indviduals could honestly give a shit. And it's easy to pick on stuff like Jesus Camp (way fucked up still) , but I know kids who were raised to be anti-semetic and go to KKK rallies. Kids are unmolded clay, you can turn them into anything if you're smart about it.
Exactly, which is why I'd consider it immoral to turn them into fanatics of any sort. Mold them into rational, compassionate human beings who can in turn mold themselves...not weapons for your favorite memeplex.
Of course, i've seen exceptions to this rule. I know kids who were Jesus Camp attendee's every year, and devoted their younger years to religon. They grew up into lawyers, bankers, heroin addicts. Some stayed true to their upbringing, but not all. I wish I had a percentage I could use, but I guess i'm saying that it's not all absolutes.
No, definitely not, but Jesus Camp (and other cult indoctrination techniques) work, to at least a sizable percentage of victims. Sizable enough to be useful.
Luckily, the human brain is more resistant than we've perhaps given it credit for on this thread- you might traumatize a 5 year old into shakin' with the Holy Spirit, but he's still 5, and lacks the understanding and context for what he's doing. He might as well just be shakin' so he can go home and eat cookies.