Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I totally disagree with you then pinksoir. Christian belief and racism are entirely two different kettles of fish.

I also don't regard Christianity as "contrary to evidence".

I doubt racists regard racism as contrary to the evidence either, but then as pinksoir said that wasn't the point. :rolleyes:

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

iUseVi: I think that such examples, only serve to obfuscate the discussion rather than contribute anything useful to it.

Well since its been made clear we aren't comparing Christianity to racism it does help as an example of children accepting whatever they are taught at a young age.

Jakkass wrote: »

From experience, unquestioning faith tends to be very much the minority. Most people who believe at least from what I've seen do wrestle with questions, most people do think rather seriously about it.

Its like the different world views are "channels" that water can flow down. If you make the Christianity "channel" deep enough the child is likely to never go down the buddist or Islam or atheist channels. Now if you want your child to be Christian, the best way to do this is start 'em early, no doubt about that.
But you are kidding yourself if you think they have a fair choice in the matter. Even if you make the Christian "channel" only a bit deeper, thats still taking away some of their choice.

Will you admit that a child taught in Christian ways from a young age will be more likely to be Christian than one who isn't? Well in fact you don't even need to admit it, that's just the facts. This is why the word "indoctrination" is bandied around, the child doesn't have a real choice about what they are growing up to be. Christians who turn away from their childhood faith are very much in the minority.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok. I'm unfortunately not amazed that you are using that to avoid the actual issue here.

Neither am I since it's not the first time he's said it despite it already being pointed out to him that he's missing the point

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I want them (hypothetical children) to understand Christ for themselves and think about it for themselves like I did. I've never said that they will "simply accept" what they are told, I personally would like them to think about it, and consider it, and hopefully accept it for themselves. Whether they do or not is up to them.

It is not up to them because, just like these racist children, their brains don't work like that.

Again, children are like sponges. They absorb and accept what they are told from their parents.

If you genuinely cared about your children coming to a rational acceptance of Christianity you would recongize this.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how that is an issue, apart from someone who has a pre-conceived notion that people never question their faith.

"People"?

Children don't question things Jakkass. Children. It is nothing to do with faith, they don't question anything. There was a boy who lived down the road from me who thought pee was made of ice cream because his parents told him that. Why would he not believe that, he was 7?

If you want to teach your 17 year old about Jesus go right ahead I've no issue with that, but that isn't what we are talking about.

philologos

iUseVi wrote: »

Will you admit that a child taught in Christian ways from a young age will be more likely to be Christian than one who isn't? Well in fact you don't even need to admit it, that's just the facts. This is why the word "indoctrination" is bandied around, the child doesn't have a real choice about what they are growing up to be. Christians who turn away from their childhood faith are very much in the minority.

The word "indoctrination" is indeed bandied around, inaccurately. Kind of like "child abuse" earlier in this thread.

Of course anyone has a real choice. We live in a society that regards freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.

Wicknight wrote:

Children don't question things Jakkass. Children. If you want to teach your 17 year old about Jesus go right ahead I've no issue with that, but that isn't what we are talking about.

I think it's possible to encourage a questioning faith in children, as well as teenagers or adults. The only reason you seem to have a problem with it is because you don't want people becoming Christians.

Wicknight wrote:

If you genuinely cared about your children coming to a rational acceptance of Christianity you would recongize this.

"If you want to be in my argument, you must think what I think". This kind of stuff isn't helpful.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

The word "indoctrination" is indeed bandied around, inaccurately. Kind of like "child abuse" earlier in this thread.

Of course anyone has a real choice. We live in a society that regards freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.



I think it's possible to encourage a questioning faith in children, as well as teenagers or adults. The only reason you seem to have a problem with it is because you don't want people becoming Christians.

Ok, Jakkass, what is your definition of "indoctrination"?

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

The word "indoctrination" is indeed bandied around, inaccurately. Kind of like "child abuse" earlier in this thread.

Of course anyone has a real choice. We live in a society that regards freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.



I think it's possible to encourage a questioning faith in children, as well as teenagers or adults.

No, Jackass, please! Children believe whatever they are told, don't you get that yet?

EDIT: If you tell your child that theres a God that watches over them etc., do you think they are gonna to start philosophising and bring in Pascal's Wager etc? Be realistic

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's possible to encourage a questioning faith in children, as well as teenagers or adults.

How exactly? How do you get your children not to be children exactly? Please explain that one to me.

The dangers of Christianity isn't actually the point of this thread, but I can't help think in the back of my mind that willfully ignoring reality because it doesn't fit with your religious outlook is just another example of the dangers of Christianity. You claim to be someone who embraces science and rationality but look how quickly you abandon that when you come up with the crushing reality that fact does not meet how you want the world to be.

Children accept unquestioningly what they are told by their parents. That is not the atheists world outlook, or the naturalists conspiracy. It is just the way children are. You can explain why through evolution but people have recognized this is the case for centuries. They are like this whether you are teaching them about Christianity or about racism or about Irish history or about playing safe and sharing. It is just reality, just the way things are.

Would you be fighting tooth and nail to ignore basic biological facts if we were discussing whether or not you should teach your children about the Irish Famine or Quantum mechanics?

philologos

iUseVi wrote: »

No, Jackass, please! Children believe whatever they are told, don't you get that yet?

EDIT: If you tell your child that theres a God that watches over them etc., do you think they are gonna to start philosophising and bring in Pascal's Wager etc? Be realistic

I think the issue here is, I'm thinking in a long term picture, and you are thinking in a very short time frame.

I think the notion that people don't question their beliefs from childhood to adulthood is just incorrect.

I think I'm being quite realistic in my assessment of the matter. I think it's ludicrous to suggest that most faith is taught without room for question.

Wicknight: I'm not fighting "tooth and nail". I just disagree with you strongly considering what I've learned from other people about their experience in coming to Christianity and from my own experience.

This argument is getting somewhat tedious, as nobody is really going to see things any differently. As long as people still have the legal right to teach children about their values, I don't mind what you think.

Zombrex

From the horses mouth so to speak

http://www.dltk-kids.com/articles/lb1.htm

Why Teach Young Children the Bible?

Once some NASA scientists were asked, "What is the moon made of? Just say the very first thing that comes to your mind." They all smiled and said, "Green cheese!" These scientists knew what the moon is really made of, but their first response was what they were taught as children!
Young children are like sponges. Their whole job in life is to take information in. It is important as parents and teachers, that we understand the precious opportunity we have to teach our young children to know and to love God. There are at least two examples in the Bible that demonstrate this.
Consider the story of baby Moses in Exodus 2:1-10. His mother had him for a little while at a very young age and then had to give him to Pharaoh's daughter. She taught him while she had the opportunity. Let's use our imagination for a moment. She may have said something like, "My precious little Moses, soon you will no longer live here. But I want you to know God, the God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is my God and I want Him to be your God, too. Remember, He will always use His power to help you. He will be your safe place in trouble. Stay in the secret place He has for you. Remember, with every step you take, His angels are watching out for you." Even though Moses was taught in all the wisdom of Egypt, he still followed the faith of his mother. Think about how powerful his mother's influence was over her young child, considering how short her opportunity was.
Now, let's look at the story of little Samuel in 1 Samuel 1:9-28. His mother, Hannah, kept him with her until he was weaned. These few years were the only time she had with him. Then, as she had promised the Lord, she brought him to the House of the Lord while he was young. From then on, she only saw him once a year. It was his mother's faith and teaching that influenced this mighty prophet.
Parents and teachers, your little children are ready and waiting to hear about God from you. It is an opportunity for all of us to study the Bible for ourselves, so that we are ready to teach them. It is an opportunity to spend time in prayer, drawing close to God, so that we can share with them our first hand knowledge of Him.

http://www.abchomepreschool.com/Bible/BibleCurriculums.htm

Preschool Bible Curriculums
Teaching the Bible to your Preschooler - It is never to early to start teaching your child the Bible. As a matter of fact, the Preschool Years are the perfect time to begin if you haven't started teaching your Child about the Bible and God. Preschool aged children are like sponges and absorb almost anything you begin teaching them at this time.

http://rightbibleforme.com/childrens-audio-bible

Children’s Versions Of The Audio Bible.

Children have been likened to sponges, in that when they are very young they are able to learn and pick up, or soak up, a huge amount of information. If you want to make a lasting impression on your chidren it makes sense to introduce your children to Bible stories early on.

This is Christians telling other Christian parents how to get their children to be Christian. They aren't pretending they are instilling important critical thinking techniques, or rational evaluation. They aren't pretending that their toddlers are rationally determining what they are being taught is true or not. They recognize this is how children work and are using that fact to teach them what they want them to accept.

What ever we think about it at least they are being honest about it.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the issue here is, I'm thinking in a long term picture, and you are thinking in a very short time frame.

I think the notion that people don't question their beliefs from childhood to adulthood is just incorrect.

I think I'm being quite realistic in my assessment of the matter. I think it's ludicrous to suggest that most faith is taught without room for question.

Jackass if this is the case, explain to me why most people who are brought up Christian stay Christian, most Muslims stay Muslim, most Pagans stay Pagan etc.

Because hey, they have loads of time to question don't they?!

pinksoir

Jakkass wrote: »

I totally disagree with you then pinksoir. Christian belief and racism are entirely two different kettles of fish.

I also don't regard Christianity as "contrary to evidence".



Yes, I want them (hypothetical children) to understand Christ for themselves and think about it for themselves like I did. I've never said that they will "simply accept" what they are told, I personally would like them to think about it, and consider it, and hopefully accept it for themselves. Whether they do or not is up to them.

I don't see how that is an issue, apart from someone who has a pre-conceived notion that people never question their faith. That to me is demonstrably false.

Oh. My. God.

That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. That wasn't the point.

The point is this; you said a few pages ago, Jakkass, that you would want your kids to decide for themselves whether they want to be Christians or not. Presumably this will be at an age when they are mentally able to critically assess the choices that are before them.

The contradiction here, is that you also claim that it is your right to teach them Christianity from an early age, thus biasing them towards that particular faith. Now of course they are free, when they get older and can critically assess what they have been taught, to disregard those beliefs. But the problem is that what we are taught as children has no small impact on what we become as adults, what we believe as adults, and how we behave as adults.

You are not really giving them a free choice. You are creating a bias. A free choice would be to not teach them about any religion, or better yet, teach them about all religions, with no single bias.

Now, here is the clincher. Nobody is arguing against your right to teach your child whatever the hell you want. That is your, ahem, god given right as a parent. In the same way that it is the racists right to teach their children their beliefs, the atheists to teach theirs their beliefs, and so on.

The gripe that Wicknight brought up is that you can't claim to want you children to make free choices about things, and then go on to create a bias in them. It's contradictory.

Again, no one is saying that you shouldn't have the right to instill your beliefs in your children. But at least admit that you want your children to share your beliefs. At least admit that what you are doing is creating a bias in them towards your particular religion. That is entirely acceptable. It is ok to do this. Others might not like it, in the way I don't particularly like the fact that the supremacists in that video are creating a racist bias in their children, or you may not like it that an atheist is creating an atheist bias in their child. But it is the right of the parent to do so.

You have to admit this. I honestly don't know who you are trying to convince here, us or yourself.

philologos

Of course it's creating a bias, that's the point of why you would teach it. Parents predispose their children in numerous ways, and create biases in numerous ways merely through their living and expression at home. In reality this is no different for Christians as it is for atheists.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it's creating a bias, that's the point of why you would teach it. Parents predispose their children in numerous ways, and create biases in numerous ways merely through their living and expression at home. In reality this is no different for Christians as it is for atheists.

Wow that's such a dodge. We aren't talking about "merely through their living and expression at home" and you know it. We are talking about active teaching.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it's creating a bias, that's the point of why you would teach it. Parents predispose their children in numerous ways, and create biases in numerous ways merely through their living and expression at home. In reality this is no different for Christians as it is for atheists.

Sweet Odins beard.

Of course it isn't any different, that is the whole point. You were the only one who brought up the atheists vs Christian idea. Atheists do all this stuff all the time. I want my children bias towards sharing as opposed to stealing, I want my children bias towards not playing on the road. I want my children bias towards staying away from strangers.

It has nothing to do with religion, it is the way children work.

The point is though you have claimed all along you don't want to create bias, you want your children to figure it out for themselves.

Can we finally put that to rest and all acknowledge that you don't in fact want this, you want your children bias towards accepting Christianity as opposed to other religions, because it is the religion you believe is the correct one?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The point is though you have claimed all along you don't want to create bias, you want your children to figure it out for themselves.

Can we finally put that to rest and all acknowledge that you don't in fact want this, you want your children bias towards accepting Christianity as opposed to other religions, because it is the religion you believe is the correct one?

There's nothing to be acknowledged. I would want anyone, not just children to if you will encounter the Gospel on a personal level. All other people can do is help them towards that conclusion, whether through evangelism in public in it's numerous forms, by discipleship in the case of helping people to gain a deeper knowledge of the Gospel if they are already Christians, and by sharing your faith at home.

It's about giving people the tools to reason, and to make sense of Christianity for themselves.

Although, other people would disagree with me, such as the sites you quoted earlier. This is how I feel about the subject.

I never said I didn't want to create bias, that's your invention. Everyone has a bias, you are biased towards atheism, and in a family situation you would inevitably bias your family members towards it. The same is true of Christians.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing to be acknowledged. I would want anyone, not just children to if you will encounter the Gospel on a personal level. All other people can do is help them towards that conclusion, whether through evangelism in public in it's numerous forms, by discipleship in the case of helping people to gain a deeper knowledge of the Gospel if they are already Christians, and by sharing your faith at home.

It's about giving people the tools to reason, and to make sense of Christianity for themselves.

Although, other people would disagree with me, such as the sites you quoted earlier. This is how I feel about the subject.

I never said I didn't want to create bias, that's your invention. Everyone has a bias, you are biased towards atheism, and in a family situation you would inevitably bias your family members towards it. The same is true of Christians.

Jackass, ever considered being a politician?

philologos

This is what I genuinely believe iUseVi

Dades

iUseVi wrote: »

We are talking about active teaching.

Surely it depends on the nature of the teaching. There are many degrees involved, from informing kids of your beliefs - to beating it into them with sticks.

Willie Stroker

Ermm , Yes and No, Basically as a parent you are funding and feeding this child so you do have a right ,but you should let them when their older around 14/15 make their own descision and rather they would want to go to church or not !

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

This is what I genuinely believe iUseVi

Its not that, its just that you are contradicting yourself a bit I think.

Before you were arguing that teaching Christianity doesn't have lasting effects on Children and create bias (didn't use that exact word maybe). Now you saying all actions create bias. Which is it.

And btw you never answered my challenge before as to why most people who are brought up Christian stay Christian, most Muslims stay Muslim, most Pagans stay Pagan etc.

But since then you've now flipped to: you do want to create bias, everyone creates bias. I mean if you've changed your mind fair enough, then what was this whole thread discussing....

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's about giving people the tools to reason, and to make sense of Christianity for themselves.

No it isn't if you do it to children

Children are not adults. If they were they would work and vote and drive and go to war.

I'm flabbergasted this has to be explained to you.

iUseVi

Dades wrote: »

Surely it depends on the nature of the teaching. There are many degrees involved, from informing kids of your beliefs - to beating it into them with sticks.

Indeed every parent is different. I'm sure some parents just casually teach their faith etc., but some children like myself had no real choice about whether for example they can go to church. If I had suggested for one second as a child I didn't want to go to church I probably would have gotten a good beating.

So yeah its not cut and dry, its a scale.

philologos

iUseVi wrote: »

Before you were arguing that teaching Christianity doesn't have lasting effects on Children and create bias (didn't use that exact word maybe). Now you saying all actions create bias. Which is it.

Well, I never said the former. What I was saying was, that people eventually come to think about this stuff for themselves. They aren't going to hold an exact duplicate of their parents views, they are going to determine if this is reasonable for themselves, and continue if it is, and discontinue if it isn't.

The teaching only goes so far, ultimately it is up to the individual to decide if they want to continue in it or not, and make a conscious decision for themselves.

This is a reality that many of the posters on this thread don't want to accept.

I also never said that teaching Christianity doesn't involve bias. It involves as much bias as any other teaching a parent can give their child.

iUseVi wrote: »

And btw you never answered my challenge before as to why most people who are brought up Christian stay Christian, most Muslims stay Muslim, most Pagans stay Pagan etc.

Read what I said after the first quote of your post.

Just because people don't change their affiliation, also doesn't mean that they haven't thought about it themselves personally. Another issue that isn't really being addressed on this thread.

It assumes that just because people are taught by their parents, that they don't think for themselves about believing. This is just incorrect.

iUseVi wrote: »

But since then you've now flipped to: you do want to create bias, everyone creates bias. I mean if you've changed your mind fair enough, then what was this whole thread discussing....

I don't think I've flipped to anything, I just think that perhaps there is some misinterpretation going on. You've derived things from my original posts that I never intended, and never actually said in them. I hope this post clears it up.

Wicknight: I'm looking at it from a long term perspective.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think I've flipped to anything, I just think that perhaps there is some misinterpretation going on. You've derived things from my original posts that I never intended, and never actually said in them. I hope this post clears it up.

You want your child to be able to choose christianity rationally and freely but you also want to hard wire a sub conscious bias towards christianity in them that they will have to fight against if they are ever to make this rational and free choice that you say you want them to make. If you want to bias your child towards christianity just say that but don't pretend that you're trying to encourage them to make a rational and objective choice of their own free will. You're trying to encourage them to make the choice that you want them to make. I'm sure you won't try to physically force them to remain a christian if they do manage to fight against this bias you've created (although you certainly will try to change their mind) but that's not the same as leaving the decision up to them in the first place

Dades

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You want your child to be able to choose christianity agnosticism rationally and freely but you also want to hard wire a sub conscious bias towards christianity agnosticism in them that they will have to fight against if they are ever to make this rational and free choice that you say you want them to make. If you want to bias your child towards christianity agnosticism just say that but don't pretend that you're trying to encourage them to make a rational and objective choice of their own free will

If I'm honest - this could apply to me.

(I suggest agnosticism as I think it's a looser 'belief' as befitting a child.)

iUseVi

Jackass, I agree that people start to think (doubt) more when they get older. And perhaps that side has been neglected on this thread. But that is probably because this thread is all about teaching religion to children, and so by constantly repeating that "people thinking for themselves" I think you are trying to avoid the issue.

Case A: People tell their children Santa exists and flies around the world in one night to deliver gifts to them - this is believed by millions.

Case B: People tell their children that God exists and Jesus had to die to forgive their "sins".

Why do you think that in case B children will really be able to distinguish the truth, when we all know from case A that they are gullible as hell.



EDIT: and I agree with you that anything a parent does will rub off on a child, but I think I would try and hold off on religious issues for a few years. That's why I have an especial problem with confirmations/baptisms, etc., if all the child's friends are doing the religious thing it forces parents to approach the subject early on.

pinksoir

iUseVi wrote: »

Jackass, I agree that people start to think (doubt) more when they get older. And perhaps that side has been neglected on this thread. But that is probably because this thread is all about teaching religion to children, and so by constantly repeating that "people thinking for themselves" I think you are trying to avoid the issue.

Case A: People tell their children Santa exists and flies around the world in one night to deliver gifts to them - this is believed by millions.

Case B: People tell their children that God exists and Jesus had to die to forgive their "sins".

Why do you think that in case B children will really be able to distinguish the truth, when we all know from case A that they are gullible as hell.



EDIT: and I agree with you that anything a parent does will rub off on a child, but I think I would try and hold off on religious issues for a few years. That's why I have an especial problem with confirmations/baptisms etc., if all the child's friends are doing the religious thing it forces parents to approach the subject early on.

I predict Jakkass will misinterpret what you've just said, and go off on one about how he believes Christianity to be 'the truth', that you are assuming that Christianity isn't true, and completely miss the point that it doesn't matter whether Christianity is true or not, but that children don't have the critical faculties to assess the truth of what they are told by their parents.

Please let me be wrong.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

If I'm honest - this could apply to me.

(I suggest agnosticism as I think it's a looser 'belief' as befitting a child.)

Sounds alright to me. You're teaching your child to be open minded.

philologos

iUseVi wrote: »

Jackass, I agree that people start to think (doubt) more when they get older. And perhaps that side has been neglected on this thread. But that is probably because this thread is all about teaching religion to children, and so by constantly repeating that "people thinking for themselves" I think you are trying to avoid the issue.

It's what I have emphasised in the thread as being crucial. I find it crucial from my perspective as well, that people seem to neglect that a lot of people don't just regard this as trivial. In fact, if this question is apparently meant to be the most important question that one can ask, particularly from a Christian point of view, then it is worthy of a great amount of thought.

Teaching religion to children, is something that is taught, not just for when they are children, but to guide people for their entire lives. That's why the long term view is the most beneficial in discussing this. Neglecting such a perspective, is neglecting the discussion as far, as it misses the point of why this happens.

It's hardly avoiding the issue, to take a broader look at why this happens.

I emphasised this aspect, because this is the aspect that I most relate to. What Christians find most important, or at least what I find most important, is that people can encounter and understand the Gospels for themselves. Indeed, independent reading of the Bible helps this too.

iUseVi wrote: »

Why do you think that in case B children will really be able to distinguish the truth, when we all know from case A that they are gullible as hell.

Truth, and likelihood of truth is determined by reasoning, and explanation, and seeing if this holds up. That's certainly how it's worked for me, in coming to regard Christianity as being more probable than not, and more reasonable than not.

pinksoir: Let's not be rude of hasty here. Let me deal with the posts, rather than having a running commentary of how I will deal with them. It's unhelpful, and you wouldn't appreciate it if I were doing this to you.

We can agree on one thing, its certainly proper for parents to teach about manners and respect

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Sweet Odins beard.

Just spat my tea

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

Truth, and likelihood of truth is determined by reasoning, and explanation, and seeing if this holds up. That's certainly how it's worked for me, in coming to regard Christianity as being more probable than not, and more reasonable than not.

But we've already seen from case A that children will readily accept Santa, something that I hope we all agree is false. So clearly children do not yet have the tools to effectively reason the truth. And I think we've also established that what a child is taught will tend to persist through life. Which is why I would teach children to think for themselves at a young age, rather than teaching them that I know the truth.

And as you say reasoning and explanation brought you to Christianity, don't you think your child would arrive there too in "the long term" if you fostered rational thinking in your child?

pinksoir: Let's not be rude of hasty here. Let me deal with the posts, rather than having a running commentary of how I will deal with them. It's unhelpful, and you wouldn't appreciate it if I were doing this to you.

We can agree on one thing, its certainly proper for parents to teach about manners and respect

Ah to be fair he/she was kinda right. And all in good humour I'm sure.

philologos

iUseVi wrote: »

But we've already seen from case A that children will readily accept Santa, something that I hope we all agree is false. So clearly children do not yet have the tools to effectively reason the truth. And I think we've also established that what a child is taught will tend to persist through life. Which is why I would teach children to think for themselves at a young age, rather than teaching them that I know the truth.

I think parents should leave room for criticism and questioning in what they actually teach their children.

However, as I said, even if children don't criticise and question at the age (I'm not so sure of this as children are generally inquisitive), they will eventually come to reason about it when they are older.

You say "tend to persist", but you are neglecting, that in that persistence there is a lot of thought, about how this applies to them personally. This is what I've been trying to get across, but it is something that is being neglected in the discussion.

iUseVi wrote: »

And as you say reasoning and explanation brought you to Christianity, don't you think your child would arrive there too in "the long term" if you fostered rational thinking in your child?

I wasn't taught very much about it at home. If I ever did have children of my own, I would like to teach them about the Scriptures, and the like, so that they mightn't make the same mistakes as I did.

If there was one thing I wish I understood sooner, it was that God wasn't meaningless, but actually a real and present being.

I personally don't believe one cannot teach both rational thinking, and Christianity simultaneously.

iUseVi wrote: »

Ah to be fair he/she was kinda right. And all in good humour I'm sure.

Its still not helpful.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

I think parents should leave room for criticism and questioning in what they actually teach their children.

However, as I said, even if children don't criticise and question at the age (I'm not so sure of this as children are generally inquisitive), they will eventually come to reason about it when they are older.

You say "tend to persist", but you are neglecting, that in that persistence there is a lot of thought, about how this applies to them personally. This is what I've been trying to get across, but it is something that is being neglected in the discussion.

So essentially we are back to: you know its going to influence children and you are happy that it does. But then why did you object to the use of the word "indoctrination" earlier? I know it tends to get used pejoratively, but if we leave aside the negative connotations for a moment you have to admit this is what to boils down to. And please note I'm not saying only Christians indoctrinate, I know for a fact that atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. do as well, so please don't see it as me singling Christianity out.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally don't believe one cannot teach both rational thinking, and Christianity simultaneously.

I'm sure you can yeah, that's not really the issue for me. The issue is one of choice. Is the child free to choose any path? Am I forcing my own beliefs too much? And like I say I blame society for forcing parents to broach this issue too early.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

However, as I said, even if children don't criticise and question at the age (I'm not so sure of this as children are generally inquisitive), they will eventually come to reason about it when they are older.

And that's why >95% of people stick with the religion they were brought up with

philologos

iUseVi wrote: »

So essentially we are back to: you know its going to influence children and you are happy that it does. But then why did you object to the use of the word "indoctrination" earlier? I know it tends to get used pejoratively, but if we leave aside the negative connotations for a moment you have to admit this is what to boils down to. And please note I'm not saying only Christians indoctrinate, I know for a fact that atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. do as well, so please don't see it as me singling Christianity out.

I object to the term indoctrination as it is mere hyperbole. I've explained this in depth earlier. In reality teaching about Christianity at home isn't any more "indoctrination" than teaching about anything at home. It's when things are being drilled in by memorisation, or when things are deemed to be unquestionable that we get into "indoctrination" territory.

The term is dishonest and inaccurate. Like the term "child abuse". It's nothing but hyperbole.

iUseVi wrote: »

I'm sure you can yeah, that's not really the issue for me. The issue is one of choice. Is the child free to choose any path? Am I forcing my own beliefs too much? And like I say I blame society for forcing parents to broach this issue too early.

There is always a choice, and indeed this choice is endowed by law. Are you forcing anything by telling your children about what you think, from politics, society, morals, or anything else?

I don't think so.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I object to the term indoctrination as it is mere hyperbole. I've explained this in depth earlier. In reality teaching about Christianity at home isn't any more "indoctrination" than teaching about anything at home. It's when things are being drilled in by memorisation, or when things are deemed to be unquestionable that we get into "indoctrination" territory.

I think you have changed or narrowed the definition of indoctrination to suit yourself because you just don't like the term being used in relation to religious teaching, I assume because it has rather a deserved negative connotation. The manner in which theists constantly refer any questions back to their own specific doctrines rather than introducing other theologies or philosophies is what makes it dogmatic indoctrination as opposed to open "teaching" for the sake of quenching a child's thirst for knowledge.

philologos

I haven't at all. I provided 2 definitions a few pages ago.

I think the term has been warped by key figures in the new atheist movement such as Richard Dawkins. The "negative connotation" is designed, by its proponents to be such. To put a negative blight, on the rather normative beliefs that people have in society.

It along with the phrase "child abuse", only amounts to fear mongering, and demonisation.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It's when things are being drilled in by memorisation, or when things are deemed to be unquestionable that we get into "indoctrination" territory.

There's far more to indoctrination than that -- it involves emotional, intellectual and political control too.

Out of interest, do you support the right of parents to inject whatever beliefs they like into their kids?

philologos

I don't think anything should be "injected". Injected conjures up very similar images to that of "indoctrination" if not the same.

Parents should be free to teach their children whatever values they deem fit as long as they aren't contrary to the law, or likely to contribute to prejudice, and hatred of people in society at large.

I don't think Christianity does this, in the same way as I don't believe that teaching secular values does this.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Parents should be free to teach their children whatever values they deem fit as long as they aren't contrary to the law, or likely to contribute to unwarranted prejudice, and hatred of people in society at large.

I don't think Christianity does this

So, do you believe that teaching kids that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" (as the Vatican describes it) does not contribute to unwarranted prejudice, and does not contribute to people hating each other?

Zombrex

pinksoir wrote: »

children don't have the critical faculties to assess the truth of what they are told by their parents.

Nail. Head. On

I would qualify it a bit

Young children don't have the critical reasoning faculties to independently assess the truth of what they are told by their parents and for evolutionary reasons are very likely to accept as true what they are told by their parents, because it was told to them by their parents, without questioning it



That is the whole point right there. Anything else is just secondary issues about what is acceptable to teach them given the above.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the term has been warped by key figures in the new atheist movement such as Richard Dawkins. The "negative connotation" is designed, by its proponents to be such. To put a negative blight, on the rather normative beliefs that people have in society.

Wrong forum for conspiracy theories. The term has had a negative connotation for many years before the "new atheists" came along. My thirty forty year old Oxford English Dictionary attests to this, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, can't be bothered to find camera batteries :P

The word was used extensively about communist activities from 1950. Whilst this example is not religious it still backups the word having as you put it: "...a negative blight, on the rather normative beliefs that people have in society."

EDIT: Oh yes, I'm VERY pedantic.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

So, do you believe that teaching kids that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" (as the Vatican describes it) does not contribute to unwarranted prejudice, and does not contribute to people hating each other?

Evidently not. I won't be rehashing the argument about the Christian position on homosexuality here. If you want to do that feel free to start a new thread on the other forum.

iUseVi: My point is that the term is inappropriately attached to teaching about Christian faith.

pinksoir

Jakkass wrote: »

Evidently not. I won't be rehashing the argument about the Christian position on homosexuality here. If you want to do that feel free to start a new thread on the other forum.

iUseVi: My point is that the term is inappropriately attached to teaching about Christian faith.

It's not teaching 'about' Christian faith, though, is it? It's teaching them that Christianity is true. Which is, as you would say, two entirely different kettles of fish.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't at all. I provided 2 definitions a few pages ago.

I think the term has been warped by key figures in the new atheist movement such as Richard Dawkins. The "negative connotation" is designed, by its proponents to be such. To put a negative blight, on the rather normative beliefs that people have in society.

It along with the phrase "child abuse", only amounts to fear mongering, and demonisation.

Jackass, you cherry picked definitions that specifically gave weight to your post, that's exactly what I was pointing out. You even have to do some research to find them, these are the first four that a quick Google finds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

http://www.answers.com/topic/indoctrination-2

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indoctrination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrination



The term hasn't been warped, the pedagogy of indoctrination has been used to inject some fairly unsavoury belief systems and practices - that doesn't detract from the propagators of other belief systems and/or practices using indoctrination. If you consider indoctrination to be a negative blight, perhaps you should look deeper at the practice rather than objecting to the term?

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Jackass, you cherry picked definitions that specifically gave weight to your post, that's exactly what I was pointing out. You even have to do some research to find them, these are the first four that a quick Google finds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

http://www.answers.com/topic/indoctrination-2

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indoctrination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrination



The term hasn't been warped, the pedagogy of indoctrination has been used to inject some fairly unsavoury belief systems and practices - that doesn't detract from the propagators of other belief systems and/or practices using indoctrination. If you consider indoctrination to be a negative blight, perhaps you should look deeper at the practice rather than objecting to the term?

TBH, the word 'indoctrination' in the context of this forum is a Pejorative term, you and any regular poster here knows it.

philologos

It's very much been warped. The title of the thread is also hyperbole. To suggest that people are "forcing" people to believe. In reality, that isn't the case at all. People have the legal right to believe whatever they wish.

I don't honestly see the point of this discussion, apart from to attempt to guilt-trip parents into stopping telling their children about their faith. That's probably not going to happen, it's normative, and it certainly isn't forcing from what I've seen.

The only reason I can think of as to why atheists would really oppose people learning about Christianity at home, is that they don't like Christianity and would prefer that it ended.

In that case, it's just about being honest enough to say it, as I'd honestly prefer if people regained a relationship with God.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

It's very much been warped. The title of the thread is also hyperbole. To suggest that people are "forcing" people to believe. In reality, that isn't the case at all. People have the legal right to believe whatever they wish.

I don't honestly see the point of this discussion, apart from to attempt to guilt-trip parents into stopping telling their children about their faith. That's probably not going to happen, it's normative, and it certainly isn't forcing from what I've seen.

The only reason I can think of as to why atheists would really oppose people learning about Christianity at home, is that they don't like Christianity and would prefer that it ended.

In that case, it's just about being honest enough to say it, as I'd honestly prefer if people regained a relationship with God.

Yeah, I can't help but think, 'It saddens me' or 'its child abuse' etc are actually not genuine feelings. I suppose the folk who say it should know if they're being honest or not.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

iUseVi: My point is that the term is inappropriately attached to teaching about Christian faith.

Well your point was about new atheists attaching meaning to the word which they did not. I think they take more than their fair of abuse and just wanted to clear that up.

But anyway, I'm dragging this seriously off topic, sorry. Carry on.