Doing everything your power to ensure your children are Christian

Seaneh

spottyelephant wrote: »

But why steer them to it.

For the same reason we send them to the best schools we can or get them the best health care policy we can afford, feed them the best food we can afford.

We love them and we know that it is what is best for them.

If you can't see the logic in that then I worry about your mental faculties.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

In a Christian context, it (your opinion) is daft.

I'm sure my dad, a Christian who has actually, you know actually raised children, will be interested to know that.

Seaneh wrote: »

I'm not getting pissed off with you. I just cannot understand how you can even begin to try and pretend that your petty little rant and selective quoting is in any way valid.

Of course it is valid. You are not arguing you don't do this, you are arguing you are perfectly entitled to do it and they are your kids and you will do what you like and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. IE you are acting like every other narrow minded parent I know, getting aggressive and throwing insults around rather than actually tackling the point.

So I think the point has been made.

homer911

Wicknight wrote: »

Living a good life doesn't get you into heaven. Believing in and accepting the offer of salvation from Jesus does.

Doesn't that acceptance require genuine understanding?

You will need to define "genuine understanding" - you either understand or you dont. You dont need to understand the full message of God in order to accept it. Full understanding (in so much as any christian can understand God) comes from studying the bible, spending time in prayer and meeting with other christians.

The Bible tells us we have to accept Jesus like little children - and children get fed on milk before they are ready for solid food.

What are trying to achieve with your argument Wicknight? By not teaching your children about God, you are indoctrinating them in the ways of atheism - in this, you are just like any christian parent (and dont tell me would educate them in all religions, because thats just as bad as teaching them nothing)

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

This is the Christianity forum so no it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

That is a false assertion, not every Christian acts like Seaneh or yourself.

thirtythirty

Seaneh wrote: »

No.
You are missing the point, entirely.

No I fully understand what you are trying to convey to me, and I address that by asking you to explain outside of the concept.
Yet you seem incapable of seperating yourself and taking a 3rd person view - trying to steadfastedly say that because you are a Christian that you will stick to your beliefs and not consider anything else is A) self serving in that you somehow believe this is re-affirming your faith and thus giving you a sense of satisfaction (whether you like to believe it or not) which is wholly a selfish act, and that is completely contrived.

Sure it doesn't bother me - i just find it fascinating that those who think they "see the light" are often shown to be blind or close-minded.

Seaneh

spottyelephant wrote: »

No I fully understand what you are trying to convey to me, and I address that by asking you to explain outside of the concept.
Yet you seem incapable of seperating yourself and taking a 3rd person view - trying to steadfastedly say that because you are a Christian that you will stick to your beliefs and not consider anything else is A) self serving in that you somehow believe this is re-affirming your faith and thus giving you a sense of satisfaction (whether you like to believe it or not) which is wholly a selfish act, and that is completely contrived.

Sure it doesn't bother me - i just find it fascinating that those who think they "see the light" are often shown to be blind or close-minded.

It's because I know what it is like to live without a relationship with God and know the difference it has made in my life that I KNOW it is beneficial for my children, I know through experience.
Hos is it self serving to want ones children to live the best life they can possibly live?

That is a fierce warped mind set.

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

You will need to define "genuine understanding" - you either understand or you dont.

Festus provided a good example

"You can teach a 4 year old arithmetic. They won't understand number theory"

A 4 year old will understand 1+1=2 in the context that this is what mummy/daddy/teach said was true and thus is true. They will understand 1+1=2 in the limited context that mummy says so, but they won't actually understand that, they will merely accept it because of the source of the information.

If mummy/daddy/teacher said 1+1=3 the child will accept that as well because they don't understand any of the context of what is being discussed.

So I would not call this genuine understanding of these concepts.

homer911 wrote: »

You dont need to understand the full message of God in order to accept it.

Well that is the issue isn't it. What level of acceptance is required here?

If a 4 year old accepts God exists and loves him because mummy said so are they genuinely accepting this, or is it just because they are told it?

homer911 wrote: »

What are trying to achieve with your argument Wicknight?

Two things

1) Acceptance that this is actually what most Christian parents do.

2) A serious think over whether it is actually, even from a Christian perspective, the best thing to do.

Some what unsurprising both these things have been meet with fierce knee-jerk defensism.

homer911 wrote: »

By not teaching your children about God, you are indoctrinating them in the ways of atheism

If you genuinely believe that this could be part of the issue.

To me teaching children there is no God is indoctrinating them in the ways of atheism, which I'm sure lots of parents do.

But if you think simply not teaching them about God as children means they won't become Christians in later life that would explain why people are so panicky about the notion of not doing this but it also to me would seriously call into question the rational behind Christianity in the first place.

If the only way you can get people to be Christian is to indoctrinate them as children what does that say for Christianity?

homer911 wrote: »

- in this, you are just like any christian parent (and dont tell me would educate them in all religions, because thats just as bad as teaching them nothing)

I would educate them in all religions. I'm not sure what you mean by "as bad as teaching them nothing".

Again if you think people only can pick a religion if they are restricted to one particular one since birth what does that say about the rational behind religion?

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a false assertion, not every Christian acts like Seaneh or yourself.

No, it's a fact. It is a biblical, Christian, fact.

In this forum if we can back something up with scripture, it is fact.

Scripture tells us (in Proverbs 22:6) " Start children off on the way they should go" and (in Ephesians 6:4) "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. and (in 2 Timothy 3:15-17) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

If the only way you can get people to be Christian is to indoctrinate them as children what does that say for Christianity?

Never mind the fact that christianity is growing in Africa and Asia faster than it ever has before and gorwing quickest in areas that traditionally have very few christians...


But like, dont let the actual facts get in your way there Wick...

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The only case you admitted was indoctrination was Fred Phelps. You have consistently said that a Christian raising their child as a Christian does not cause indoctrination to Christianity.

A parent merely teaching their children about their Christian faith, as I would see it doesn't amount to indoctrination no.

There are cases where it can cross the line between teaching about Christianity to full scale indoctrination, but this is a rarity at best.

Wicknight wrote: »

I could go on but I think you get the point. Your position all along is that what Christians do by raising their children as Christians is not indoctrination and doesn't lead to them not freely choosing Christianity as an adult based on adult rationality.

The vast majority of Christians certainly. In my own case and in the case of countless others that I've met.

Wicknight wrote: »

They just randomly picked a Christian prayer to say instead of say a passage of Yeats or the periodic table?

Or you re-sighted it because as far as the school were concerned you were a Christian and this is what you should be doing?

Christian ethos school will have a Christian character. There is no need to assume that people need be Christians to begin with. In the case of my second school there were non-Christians enrolled there in the clear knowledge that it was a CofI ethos school. In such cases they nonetheless went to chapel and sat quietly or took time out for reflection.

Wicknight wrote: »

They were showing what it was like if you happened at a latter date to choose to be a Christian? I find it difficult to believe you are genuinely that naive Jakkass.

As I would see it there isn't really much way it can be expected for a child below the age of 12 certainly to have a broad conviction in Christianity. Rather to teach the basics and allow for such children to decide later is most reasonable from how I see it. Perhaps others see this differently, but this is how I see it.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the sort of denial I'm talking about.

Ulterior motives galore Wicknight.

Wicknight wrote: »

Thinking for yourself sounds nice but in reality we spend a great deal of time being heavily influenced by external factors. It is absurd to pretend other wise.

Thinking for myself, happened. Again, if we want to go down the road of saying that this didn't happen it is fine, but certainly my own thinking is evidenced in my posts.

Wicknight wrote: »

Otherwise advertising wouldn't work, and religious spread would be unrelated to parents religion.

How do you think Christianity arrived in Europe to begin with?
Indeed, what do you make of conversion.

Highly flawed.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think people have great difficulty separate out what you spend an entire childhood being taught as true and what you decide in your later life is true. This goes for everything, not just religion.

I don't know to be honest. At one point I thought I was going to be set to be a pilot, indeed my parents subtly encouraged me by buying me the numerous versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator when I was growing up.

Alas, come university time although not 100% certain, I'm thinking I'd like to be a software developer, amongst other ideas I toyed around with.

Wicknight wrote: »

Being genuinely surprised that you reach the same conclusion with religion out of the pleater of options that you spend a childhood being directly and indirectly is true is to me the absurd bit.

Actually, I would say that I differ in some respects now than what would be accepted by many in my denomination. If you look back I posted briefly about infant baptism in this thread, I'm fairly sure. Indeed, due to having a number of Christian friends at university no doubt they have also rubbed off on me and I on them.

I think you're having difficulty accepting that people can rationally make different decisions apart from being an atheist.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

A parent merely teaching their children about their Christian faith, as I would see it doesn't amount to indoctrination no.

There are cases where it can cross the line between teaching about Christianity to full scale indoctrination, but this is a rarity at best.

Ok lets just try and clarify this one point.

What is a Christian parent teaching their child that they (the child) are Christian, and all that entails?

And do you think the vast majority of Christians don't do this?

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

Never mind the fact that christianity is growing in Africa and Asia faster than it ever has before and gorwing quickest in areas that traditionally have very few christians...

So you agree with me that homer911 is wrong, not teaching your children Christianity doesn't turn them into atheists?

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

So you agree with me that homer911 is wrong, not teaching your children Christianity doesn't turn them into atheists?

you see, this is the inane "debate" tools and selective quotation practice I was talking about.


No, you were wrong, he was right.

And then you were wrong again.

Now, let it go.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Omitting religious teachings doesn't turn a child atheist, it leaves that part as, essentially, a blank slate that can later be filled in with religion, agnosticism, or atheism.

You just know those kiddies would catch fire from Satan and Richard Dawkin's influences if left without religious teachings.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Seaneh wrote: »

you see, this is the inane "debate" tools and selective quotation practice I was talking about.


No, you were wrong, he was right.


And then you were wrong again.

Now, let it go.

Also considering the stuff Christians quote from the bible, you're in no position to call anything inane.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok lets just try and clarify this one point.

What is a Christian parent teaching their child that they (the child) are Christian, and all that entails?

And do you think the vast majority of Christians don't do this?

Sure.

1) Teaching ones children about the general metanarrative that Christians believe.
2) Teaching ones child about the belief in God as Creator.
3) Teaching ones child about Biblical Events.
4) Teaching ones child about Jesus and the Gospel in light of the Biblical events of the Old Testament.
5) Teaching ones child about the role of prayer.
6) Bringing ones child to church to see Christianity in action.
7) Teaching ones child about other worldviews, and Christian thought about such worldviews.
8) Presenting ones child with the case Christians commonly present for believing in the Gospel and common objections.
9) Teaching ones child about the reasons why Christians perform celebrations such as Christmas and Easter. Explaining why Christians perform baptism, and its meaning.

This is just a start. There is much more that would be included no doubt.

Giving ones child the tools to fully understand the Gospel before rejecting or accepting it is key. It is always a parents hope that ones child will encounter the life-changing Gospel, but a lot of it is down to individual thinking and this thought must be facilitated in order to provide a rich and thoughtful faith rather than a blind one.

Seaneh

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Also considering the stuff Christians quote from the bible, you're in no position to call anything inane.

In the forum the bible = the last word. it is the basis of our faith. It is what everything we believe is based on. Without it we don't have a belief.
It is far from inane.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Seaneh wrote: »

In the forum the bible = the last word. it is the basis of our faith. It is what everything we believe is based on. Without it we don't have a belief.
It is far from inane.

Then maybe learn one of it's lessons and be considerate when it comes to debating and arguing. Your holy book is as valid to me as the above posters arguments are to you.
Also, it's a bit sad that you consider a man made document your entire belief structure that you cannot live without - surely your god is the base of all that?!

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a false assertion, not every Christian acts like Seaneh or yourself.

Not so. The assertion that the existence of an immortal soul is a fact to Christians. Within the a&a forum it may be a matter of opinion depending on whether you are a or a.

Within this forum, the Christian forum, the existence of an immortal soul within every person regardless of faith, or lack thereof, is a fact.

As Christians with children we have a duty and responsibility to protect our childrens souls and provide them with a grounding that will endure throught their lives. We don't always succeed and in some cases our work is undone by others. Occasionally we fail miserably through inaction, bad choices or whatever.

Another atheist appears.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

you see, this is the inane "debate" tools and selective quotation practice I was talking about.

The only thing inane going on is you not bothering to actually read my posts before responding with the opposite of what ever you think I'm saying (irrespective of whether I am actually saying it).

My response to homer911 was an counter to his position that not teaching them about any particular religion will make them atheist.

Thats once again for providing evidence against homer911's argument.

When you are done trying to score points do you have anything else to add?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Not so. The assertion that the existence of an immortal soul is a fact to Christians.

That wasn't the assertion I was countering, it was that this is what is best for your children.

While I'm sure every Christian, including my father, believes in an immortal soul, not everyone believes that raising your children as a Christian is what is best for them. Some believe that what is best for them is to choose to be a Christian when they are adult enough to understand what that means.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

1) Teaching ones children about the general metanarrative that Christians believe.
2) Teaching ones child about the belief in God as Creator.
3) Teaching ones child about Biblical Events.
4) Teaching ones child about Jesus and the Gospel in light of the Biblical events of the Old Testament.
5) Teaching ones child about the role of prayer.
6) Bringing ones child to church to see Christianity in action.
7) Teaching ones child about other worldviews, and Christian thought about such worldviews.
8) Presenting ones child with the case Christians commonly present for believing in the Gospel and common objections.
9) Teaching ones child about the reasons why Christians perform celebrations such as Christmas and Easter. Explaining why Christians perform baptism, and its meaning.

This is just a start. There is much more that would be included no doubt.

Ok? None of that includes what I actually asked?

What is a Christian parent teaching their child that they (the child) are Christian

Is that merely education?

philologos

I don't agree that all Christian parents start off with the assumption that the child is Christian. One can only lead someone to Jesus, but one cannot guarantee that they will believe and trust in Him. Most Christian parents would delight at this prospect, as it is the best thing they could wish for their child. Compare this to the hopes that ones child will excel in life multiplied by 1000.

It has to be centre to a Christian parent to seek that their child will know the truth, but ultimately this is up to the child to decide. The parent only can inform. Meaning I reject your position that teaching a child about Christianity is determinism.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't the assertion I was countering, it was that this is what is best for your children.

Well you did pick my response to spottyelephant which was his assertion that the soul is a matter of opinion.
If you want to butt in do try to follow the thread and keep up. The little blue arrows help

Wicknight wrote: »

While I'm sure every Christian, including my father, believes in an immortal soul, not everyone believes that raising your children as a Christian is what is best for them. Some believe that what is best for them is to choose to be a Christian when they are adult enough to understand what that means.

Likewise there are many who believe that their children should be adult enough to understand number theory before they let them loose with 1+1 =2 :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree that all Christian parents start off with the assumption that the child is Christian.

Again, this is a common semantic argument propagated by those with an anti-religion leaning. If someone says, 'what religion is your household' it is quite normal to say, 'We're Christian'. You wouldn't say, 'Well all the adults are Christians, but my children are nothing as they haven't reached a time in their lives where they can say one way or the other'. Parents speak on behalf of their children, and there is NOTHING wrong with that. I have a 4 month old. If someone asked me, 'Will you raise him Christian'. I'd say, 'Most certainly'. I'll be trying to raise my child to have manners, to be honest, to be wise, and to be Christian. He will ultimately decide, like I did, what he will do and believe etc, but like every child, his parental influence will be a big factor on his direction in life.

The anti religious make it out to be a bad thing because they neither like, nor understand what it is to be Christian. The very fact that this question is asked shows the absolute lack of understanding.

One can only lead someone to Jesus, but one cannot guarantee that they will believe and trust in Him. Most Christian parents would delight at this prospect, as it is the best thing they could wish for their child. Compare this to the hopes that ones child will excel in life multiplied by 1000.

Precisely.

Jesus offers salvation. He offers eternal life. He offers a path to God, our creator. He offers Joy, Love, REAL hope etc.

This world and its diabolical ruler (Satan) is at odds with God. It tempts the flesh. The flesh goes for things ungodly. It says indulge any desires. It encourages both implicitly and explicitly to fly in the face of God and his wisdom. It is so easy to fall into the snares of the flesh. Greed, dishonesty, immorality and the list goes on as Paul describes.

Yet with the above, you have some people who say, 'Don't encourage your child to be Christian as its not considering the child'? Well, that is the most abhorrent, ill conceived, irresponsible, unwise, short sighted, bad parenting one could imagine. A Christian who wants whats best for their child would NEVER treat the matter of showing their child the way to Christ in such a flippant manner. If they did, they are either not really Christian, a bit 'Meh' about the whole thing, or they are very irresponsible parents.

It has to be centre to a Christian parent to seek that their child will know the truth, but ultimately this is up to the child to decide. The parent only can inform. Meaning I reject your position that teaching a child about Christianity is determinism.

Thats it. We can and most certainly SHOULD be bias in educating our children about the Truth, but they will ultimately decide. We certainly lead them towards HOPEFULLY, God willing, making the right decision.

The thing about these inane arguments with muddle-minded anti-theists, is that they hope that they can paint a picture that they are 'concerned' for children. In doing so, pejoratively painting the picture that we are in some way not concerned. They like to give the impression that we are damaging their powers of rationale, and fudging their ability to make decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there exists no wisdom outside of God. To neglect to help ones child find God, is to be grossly negligent as a parent. Could you imagine if someone was a parent, who decided to be so clumsy about their childs spiritual health. The child then just goes with the flow of the world and doesn't really bother with Christ. Judgement day arrives and that child turns to them and says: 'What the hell were you playing at??? Why didn't you make sure I knew the Truth?? You made sure I went to college, and always made sure I was polite and mannerly, but this, the most important thing of all! You decided to be so flippant with???'. Not to mention that the child lost out on the great experience of a relationship with Christ in this life. The whole premise is absolutely ludicrous.

homer911

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Omitting religious teachings doesn't turn a child atheist, it leaves that part as, essentially, a blank slate that can later be filled in with religion, agnosticism, or atheism.

Totally incorrect, but you probably wont appreciate my analogy...

Nature abhors a vacuum. Not teaching a child about Christianity does not leave a Christianity shaped/sized hole in their lives - it get fills with all sorts of worldly junk (atheism, ...) Becoming a Christian is never filling a hole - its muscleing into a space already occupied, because you have to let go of something in order to make space - sometimes that space is like concrete (usually when a person is older), with children its like loose clay

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Well you did pick my response to spottyelephant which was his assertion that the soul is a matter of opinion.
If you want to butt in do try to follow the thread and keep up. The little blue arrows help

That ain't the way I read it, but if there is confusion I'm talking about the idea that all Christians believe this is the best way to raise your children. If that wasn't what you were talking about it is cheerfully withdrawn.

Festus wrote: »

Likewise there are many who believe that their children should be adult enough to understand number theory before they let them loose with 1+1 =2 :rolleyes:

Well no there isn't, that is sort of the point, then they don't pretend otherwise.

Like I already said if people were honest and said "I've decided my kids are giong to be Christian, they are doing to raised as Christians because that is what I've decided is best for them and that is being Christian" then a lot of back and forth would be unnecessary. Instead we get all this nonsense about how it is just education

People seem happy to do this but much less confident standing over doing it.

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

Totally incorrect, but you probably wont appreciate my analogy...

Nature abhors a vacuum. Not teaching a child about Christianity does not leave a Christianity shaped/sized hole in their lives - it get fills with all sorts of worldly junk (atheism, ...)

While it might fill it with junk from the point of view of a Christian, research suggests it isn't atheism junk.

People have a natural tendency to view supernatural agents in nature. Leave a child alone (ie don't give them a religion) and they will simply invent their own. Atheism itself is actually the vacuum that is difficult to maintain and easily becomes filled with any supernatural explanation for the world.

The common atheist assertion that we are all by default atheists isn't actually that accurate. We are all by default pagans in the Christian sense.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree that all Christian parents start off with the assumption that the child is Christian.

Great. That isn't the question I asked you nor is it an assertion I made. I know at least one Christian parent who didn't do this, so I don't know where you got the "all" from?

Do you actually have an issue answering the question I put to you originally? You don't have to if you don't want to but you can stop answering these made up questions as if they were the ones I put to you?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

The common atheist assertion that we are all by default atheists isn't actually that accurate. We are all by default pagans in the Christian sense.

According to some that would be entirely inaccurate and grossly misleading.

We apparently are hard-wired to be religious and the atheistic position is a result of a long hard fight against the evolutionary default.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6823229.ece

isn't irony fun

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

According to some that would be entirely inaccurate and grossly misleading.

They are wrong.

Festus wrote: »

We apparently are hard-wired to be religious and the atheistic position is a result of a long hard fight against the evolutionary default.

Yes, that is what I just said? Sorry I'm not following, were you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

They are wrong.

prove it

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, that is what I just said? Sorry I'm not following, were you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

you suggested paganism and I am disagreeing.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

prove it

Certainly

Born Believers: How your brain creates god.

Festus wrote: »

you suggested paganism and I am disagreeing.

By linking to an article that demonstrate my point?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly

Born Believers: How your brain creates god.



By linking to an article that demonstrate my point?

Your point was in regards to paganism and as such is not supported by either article.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Your point was in regards to paganism and as such is not supported by either article.

Paganism is the belief in non-Christian gods. Both articles say that left to their own devices children will come up with a range of supernatural entities to believe in. Lock some kids in a room for 15 years and they will come out believing in the existence of a range of made up supernatural agents/deities.

I'm really not following what your objection here is. How is that not paganism?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Paganism is the belief in non-Christian gods. Both articles say that left to their own devices children will come up with a range of supernatural entities to believe in. Lock some kids in a room for 15 years and they will come out believing in the existence of a range of made up supernatural agents/deities.

I'm really not following what your objection here is. How is that not paganism?

The articles do not support your assertion. That experiment has not been performed and until it is we will not know if they will believe in many gods (paganism) or one God (monotheism).

In fact the article says "Left to their own devices, children create their own "creole" languages using hard-wired linguistic brain circuits. A similar experiment would provide our best test of the innate religious inclinations of humans. Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom"

Nowhere does it say what you say it says.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

The articles do not support your assertion. That experiment has not been performed and until it is we will not know if they will believe in many gods (paganism) or one God (monotheism).

Paganism means non-Christian. You are thinking of polytheism.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I already said if people were honest and said "I've decided my kids are giong to be Christian, they are doing to raised as Christians because that is what I've decided is best for them and that is being Christian" then a lot of back and forth would be unnecessary. Instead we get all this nonsense about how it is just education

People seem happy to do this but much less confident standing over doing it.

There appears to be much confidence on display here.

and I think the discussion on it being education is due to somebody describing religious education as indoctrination

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Paganism means non-Christian. You are thinking of polytheism.

moot point until the experiment is conducted.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

moot point until the experiment is conducted.

Not at all because my assertion "We are all by default pagans in the Christian sense." has already been supported by research and experiment as mine and your article shows.

“Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,” he said.

Again, experiments on young children reveal this default state of the mind. Children as young as three readily attribute design and purpose to inanimate objects. When Deborah Kelemen of the University of Arizona in Tucson asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist "to make nice music", while rivers exist so boats have something to float on. "It was extraordinary to hear children saying that things like mountains and clouds were 'for' a purpose and appearing highly resistant to any counter-suggestion," says Kelemen.

If you want to find out the spread of whether children come up with monotheist or polytheist deites by all means carry out the hypothetical experiment. But that was not my assertion, my assertion was nothing to do with whether they would be polytheist.

That seems to be based purely on you confusing pagan with polytheist.

Happy with that? Or do you want to keep arguing?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Tand I think the discussion on it being education is due to somebody describing religious education as indoctrination

Who was that?

Wicknight wrote:

There is a difference between education and indoctrination.

antiskeptic

Couldn't help noticing this in the New Scientist edition you quote WK

New Scientist (without even a hint of irony, given the causes of the credit crunch) wrote:

Read our related editorial: the credit crunch could be a boon for irrational belief

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Couldn't help noticing this in the New Scientist edition you quote WK

Ok...? And?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok...? And?

Given that human irrationality is what brought about the credit crunch (using no doubt, many of the tools made possible by Science), New Scientist shouldn't be surprised that people proceed along with (what it perceives as) those self-same characteristics afterwards. Objects in motion .. and all that.

Then I clicked on the advertoria ... I mean ... editorial and realised why this might be so.

Ode to the rose-tinted view of Science wrote:

SCIENCE has allowed us to smooth over many of the natural ups and downs of human existence. We have predictable harvests, food on supermarket shelves, savings and pensions that will help us get through difficult times, and economies that provide most people with what they need to survive. Alongside these developments a rational, scientific world view has become the dominant mode of thought.

Take the comforts away, however, and the rationality often evaporates too. When human beings lose control over their lives, they become more prone to superstition, spiritual searchings and conspiracy theories...

cue The Valkyrie

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given that human irrationality is what brought about the credit crunch (using no doubt, many of the tools made possible by Science), New Scientist shouldn't be surprised that people proceed along with (what it perceives as) those self-same characteristics afterwards. Objects in motion .. and all that.

I don't think New Scientist were claiming to be surprised, were they?

The connection between recessions, general hard times and a boom in irrational belief is well know. The connection between feelings of lack of control and embracing supernatural explanations is also well know. Times of stress and strife cause people to turn to supernatural and irrational explanations and remedies. People have been doing this since the time of human sacrifices.

So I'm still not following your point? And does have anything to do with the thread?

philologos

Wicknight: I'm not going to work from invalid assumptions that you pose in your questions, if I find such assumptions unreasonable I will tackle them first. That makes sense to me. Otherwise the exercise would be about as futile as answering "Do you still beat your wife?" when you have never beaten your wife.

If you can make your post assumption free, or at least list the assumptions and why you hold them first, then I will be glad to think it through. Otherwise its just frustrating for you and for me.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Not at all because my assertion "We are all by default pagans in the Christian sense." has already been supported by research and experiment as mine and your article shows.

“Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,” he said.

Again, experiments on young children reveal this default state of the mind. Children as young as three readily attribute design and purpose to inanimate objects. When Deborah Kelemen of the University of Arizona in Tucson asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist "to make nice music", while rivers exist so boats have something to float on. "It was extraordinary to hear children saying that things like mountains and clouds were 'for' a purpose and appearing highly resistant to any counter-suggestion," says Kelemen.

If you want to find out the spread of whether children come up with monotheist or polytheist deites by all means carry out the hypothetical experiment. But that was not my assertion, my assertion was nothing to do with whether they would be polytheist.

That seems to be based purely on you confusing pagan with polytheist.

Happy with that? Or do you want to keep arguing?

No, not happy. You are asserting paganism as the default.
Nowhere in the article is pagan or paganism mentioned. I accept that the term "gods" is used but does not appear to be mentioned in the paganistic sense.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: I'm not going to work from invalid assumptions that you pose in your questions, if I find such assumptions unreasonable I will tackle them first.

Ok. Imagine only one person has ever said that their child is a Christian before an age that the child could be reasonably expected to be able to choose for themselves that they are (say a 4 year old)

Would you consider that person to be merely educating their child about the parents faith? Or would you consider it more than that?

Jakkass wrote: »

If you can make your post assumption free, or at least list the assumptions and why you hold them first

My assumption should be reasonably clear, lots and lots and lots of Christains think of their children as Christian before an age when a child could reasonably be expected to understand and make such a decision for themselves, and they describe them as such.

This too me is far more than merely educating their children about the parents religion.

Before you agree or disagree with the question of whether this happens do you agree or disagree with the question of whether this is merely educating them as to the parents faith?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

No, not happy. You are asserting paganism as the default.
Nowhere in the article is pagan or paganism mentioned. I accept that the term "gods" is used but does not appear to be mentioned in the paganistic sense.

Then you do not understand what pagan means. I'm some what at a loss as to how to be any clearer.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Then you do not understand what pagan means. I'm some what at a loss as to how to be any clearer.

of course I do. It's latin for culchie

wiki Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]