Re: introducing faith/religion to kids

Banty wrote:
In article <9smdnTMw9dwdh8zVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article <TO2dneXh1fciO83VnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ericka Kammerer
says...
I *do* have concerns about when and how to talk about evidence and provability,
as the very idea of non-provability is front line in apology (in the formal
sense of apologists) for religion.
It's the front line in science too!

But not in the way you have it. Science would not strive to investigate to make
sure there's no Russel's teapot by striving for better and better telescopes and
funding space missions to go out and look for a teapot, if there were a religion
based on an orbiting, below-the-current-detection-limit teapot! Science has
better unknowns to be looking for. And a different idea of the unknowable.

Um, did I say somewhere that unprovables or unknowables
had to be pursued? I rather think I remember saying that the
value of identifying unprovables or unknowables is that one
can then refrain from wasting time trying to prove or know them
(or wasting time arguing with others when by definition evidence
is going to be lacking).

There you go again
as if I have some agenda to make sure the kids aren't shut down
on religion too early, when in fact it's a concern that applies
equally on both sides.

Can you consider that you might be fallible in detecting your own motivations
hmmm?

I would suggest that I am in rather a better position
to know my motivations that you are, given that you don't
even know what my religious beliefs are.

I would think that you would be as or
more concerned with having clear distinctions between fact, theory
and opinion, and with promoting a mindset that isn't so quick to
jump on others as being wrong/misguided/going to hell in a handbasket.
It rather surprises me to see that you are willing to espouse
the idea that children shouldn't be taught to think and question
until you've had a chance to make sure the outcome will be the
way you want it first.

I didn't say that either. I'm concerned about paths which would leave a child
open to *others'* ardent efforts to guarantee *their* outcomes. Quite different
from wanting to guarantee a single specific outcome. You seem to be having
problems with categories here.

Can you explain to me how it is possible to teach
to bullet proof a child against any other beliefs without
damaging the child's ability to think about his own beliefs
critically? I think that the risk of encountering something
that challenges one's assumptions is a cost of doing business
unless you're interested in absolutism. I take it since
you're defending the notion of closing down the possibility
of children entertaining other viewpoints that you're fully
in support of religious parents teaching their children that
their religious beliefs are the only truth and making sure
that things like, say, evolution don't have a chance with them?
What would be wrong with stating and defending your
beliefs to your child and teaching your child to thinking
critically about alternatives? I should think that if you
have any confidence in your beliefs that they would withstand
scrutiny? If a belief can't withstand questioning, is it
worth maintaining?

Many religious parents have concerns about
their children firmly having hold of religious concepts first, especially as
some religions purport dire consequences for non-belief. I'm happy to allow for
that and don't expect them to act against thier own self-perceived ardent
interests. You and I evidently have very different ideas about the
non-provable. Why would you have me discuss with my child in a manner more in
line with *your* ideas?? I'm not at all proposing an absolutist viewpoint. Just resisting your rather specific view of how to not to do that.
So tell me how *you* propose to promote non-absolutism
in younger kids?

:::sigh:::

Depends on the kid, and the situation. It may be sooner, or later. A four year
old UU might be the first one to blurt religous ideas to my kid, not a four year
old Southern Baptist. I'd treat the two differently. My kid might have a
questioning mind from the beginning, or need some guidance through the years
using teachable opportunities. Ive found I've needed a combination with my kid.

It seems *you're* the one with a single, firmly held recipe in mind. Not me.

No, you're the one who is confusing the *examples* I
provided (at your request, I might add) with "recipes."

Mine is hardly the viewpoint of an absolutist. How did *I* become in your view
the black and white one for resisting this idea that doubt has to be discussed
at the very first introduction of religious ideas by anyone, pro or con???
I did not say that every conversation had to be hung about
with caveats. I said that I thought it was important to teach
critical thinking and non-absolutism from the beginning. When
you asked for an example of that, I gave one to you. When you
asked what that meant in general, I told you the goals that I
was striving for. And frankly, since the goals I've stated are
to have children who are willing to admit that they don't necessarily
have the 100 percent truth for every unproven or unprovable belief
they hold, I think the contrary position *is* in fact rather
black and white.

But you're quite upset apparently that that isn't stated the first time it's
ever brought up. That's being quite doctrinaire, actually.

First of all, I'm not upset, so you might refrain from
trying to handwave away my arguments as nothing more than emotional
outbursts. Second, I'd be mightily curious if you can find anywhere
that I said that a particular set of words must be used each and
every time beliefs are discussed from infancy onward, or even something
reasonably approximating that. I think you've set up a nice little
strawman for yourself.

Would you care to rephrase that in English? ;-) Are
you saying that you don't think that kids raise to believe that
their unproven or unprovable beliefs are 100 percent true are
not arrogant and self-righteous about those beliefs? If so,
I'm not buying that. I've seen ample evidence to the contrary.

I''ve never made that kind of statement.

I just don't think it has to happen exactly the way you would have it.

Which is rather an interesting comment since I haven't
been nearly as prescriptive as you seem to think I have.

OK, Ericka.

I don't think that kids raised to believe that their unproven or unprovable
beliefs are 100 percent true have the whole story about the world.

Quote that.

Fine. Duly quoted.

It takes more than that to label them "arrogant and self-righteous". Goodness,
once they find a stricly religious kid has that certainity, a kid taught that
might say rude things to him about his being arrogant and self-righteous.

And we cant have that, can we.

??? I don't think I understand what you're trying to
say here. Are you suggesting that the kid taught his belief
system is the one and only truth is somehow equally likely
to get along well and politely with people who believe differently
as the kid who's taught that no matter how cherished his beliefs,
he might not have cornered the market on truth prior to hitting
double digits in age?


No, I'm not. I'm not insisting that X concepts be introduced to young children
at Y opportunity. You, on the other hand, are.
So again, you're ok with promoting an absolutist position
with a young child?

I did not say that. Not_x does not equal y. Unless you define it so.

But if I say that what I'm suggesting is avoiding teaching
absolutism, then disagreeing with that sort of leads to the logical
conclusion that one is for teaching absolutism. Look, what I'm
saying here is that you're setting up a strawman and tearing that
down. That's fine, but it's not a response to *my* position, so
please don't keep acting as if it is.


Which leaves me to wonder, if either is ineffective, why should I be telling a
little kid no body can be sure about what *I'm* even teaching, the first time I
introduce to him a religious concept or have to answer a question about one??
Why is it necessary to teach him that you're infallible
and that what you're telling him in that moment is the total
truth and anything different is wrong? Do you think teaching
that sort of absolutism is useful or likely to have beneficial
results? If not, what would you do to suggest otherwise to your
child? Or is it ok with you if he goes out into the
world with that sort of absolutism?
I dont' teach absolutism.
But are you absolutist about what you do teach? *That's*
what I'm talking about here.

Not that either. Especially not my kid. LOL.

Ericka - lets see this discussion with a religious parent. After this I'm done.

My bet is more with what Chookie describes, as being the easiest for a kid to
understand. And doesn't leave me to have to apparently waver in my own
teachings. And what Chookie does it what people do. The Christian ones have
the kids sing "Jesus loves me this I *know*". Basics first. Then they get into
doubt and all that later.

How is it that you are an authority on all Christians
and how they do things?
Very very many of them do. Tell me you've never heard the song "Jesus loves me
this I *know*".
Of course I've heard the song, but everything takes place
in a context and I'm curious how you know what all Christians have
taught their children about that song or what they've taught
their children about how to interact with others of different
beliefs? And do you pass on your confidence in your knowledge
of how all Christians do things to your child?

I didnt say "all Christians", but having grown up in the Bible Belt and having
actually belonged to a gospel club, I have some confidence in my knowledge of
how a *lot* of them do.

Nevertheless, in the quote above you did not say, "The
Christians I grew up with in the Bible Belt have the kids..."
Which is precisely my point. When we aren't on our toes and
questioning our assumptions, we do potentially objectionable
things like making statements about how "Christian ones" do
things when there's little reason to believe that all Christians
believe or behave identically.

And every one knows that song. Wave it away with "context" if you try, but it
does canonize in a way most retainable by a young child, but certainity about a
religious concept ("Jesus loves me this I *know*", and the very circular
reasoning that underlies a lot of religion. ("Cause the Bible tells me so").

I was not arguing the content of the song. I was arguing
your assumption that all Christians teach that song, or that all
Christians teach their children that their beliefs are the one
and only truth. Heck, even if you look at denominational faith
statements, while some espouse the inerrancy of the Bible, others
do not. Again, I think this is a perfect example of the dangers
of not examining assumptions.

And you're simply not going to have any hope of having any appreciable
proportion of parents of all creeds teach about doubt and provability in their
very first discussions of religion with their kids.
No concept of that complexity is taught in its entirety
to four year olds. Religious concepts aren't taught in a single
conversation, and neither is science. Nevertheless, the seeds are
planted from the beginning.
And in just exactly the way you insist :-/
You asked for examples, I gave examples. I have not
presumed that all people will use my exact words. You wanted
an example of what I would say for purposes of discussion and
I gave it to you. I don't think you'll find anywhere that I
said those were the precise words I required of anyone. In fact,
I doubt you will find anywhere that I said everyone had to agree
with me. I argued my position and why I thought it was the
appropriate position.

And if I say Im OK with a version of your examples, with only the statement
about unprovability left out, youre not satisfied. That's pretty good empirical
evidence that you want exactly *that*.

You asked for an example, and I gave one that incorporated
the concepts I think are important. You reworded it to leave out
one of the concepts I think is important. I made the observation
that you eliminated a concept I found important. That doesn't
mean that I think every conversation at every age has to include
every concept I think is important.

Furthermore, where are you getting this notion that because
I advocate something that I think that everyone else has to do it
that way? Everyone gets to make their own child-rearing decisions,
and I doubt you'll find anywhere that I said any differently. I
have said what *I* think is best and put forth my arguments for
why I think so. I have not said that anyone else is required to
agree with me. In fact, I seem to recall saying that I realized
there are plenty of folks who wouldn't.

Even if you do, many would
be talking about it in terms of *human* fallibility vs. the All-Knowing's
fallibility!
What's the problem with that?
Because it's STILL proposing an "All-Knowing" with certainity! So much for
teaching against absolutism.
??? If a deity doesn't exist, what does it matter what
the deity's purported characteristics are? If humans are fallible,
then whatever they believe could be wrong, including the belief
in a deity or the belief in an omniscient deity.

If a parent talks about fallibility of belief only with respect that an
All-Knowing God would know, it reinforces religious belief (at least the basic
belief) instead of laying the groundwork to question religious belief in
general.

Well, which way would you like your strawman to go?
Do you want me to say that parents should undermine their
beliefs or that they should pass on their beliefs? What I'd
rather say is that I think it's ideal for parents to pass on
their beliefs (e.g., "I believe that God exists and is omniscient,"
or "I believe no God exists" or "God may or may not exist" or
whatever their beliefs are) while simultaneously admitting that
humans are, by nature, fallible.

Ah this is where I think you need to consider exactly where you're coming from.
You didn't see the problem with that. Do you really see no problem with "I
don't know, honey, but God knows"?
I think it's moot if God doesn't exist. And furthermore,
that statement is made by a fallible human and therefore could be
incorrect.

OK, you explain that to a four year old.

Roger that.

I'll take a different tack.

Go for it.

We won't have gotten anywhere, esp. concerning unbelievers. For
manner's sake you'd about as likely get them all be non-believers, each teaching
their kids to look to evidence, and that would solve other kins of problems
IMNSHO, too ;-)

Teaching the difference between being evil and being wrong is *much* more widely
palatable, believe me. Even the most hellfire Christian has the concept of
deferring judgment to his deity.

And? What has that to do with the value (or lack thereof)
in teaching someone to consider possibilities beyond those one
has chosen to espouse?
I haven't said anything agaisnt the value of that.
<boggle> You've just spent all this time saying that
it's not appropriate to be teaching children that!

Not in the way you propose! I didnt say not at *all*.

Go ahead and flog the strawman that I am dictating
the precise wording that must be used in each and every belief
statement at every age.

I think those issues are two sides of the same coin.
Both are reasons to be charitable to others when you disagree
with them: 1) Not everyone who believes differently from
you is wrong and 2) Not everyone who believes differently
>from you is evil.

They're both reasons, but they're both distinct. As evil is not the opposite of
correct.
??? Were you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
They're not two sides of the same coin. Chookie's approach is different from
what you propose.
Perhaps you'd like to articulate your perception of how
it is different?

"Mistaken" can mean 'mistaken about what we know to be true 100%'. That's
different (and not the other side of the coin) from 'we cannot know for
certain'.

Yes, there are two concepts, but they are complementary.
The fact that some things are unprovable or unknowable ipso facto
suggests that the possibility for falsehood.

So - exactly - what - would you have Chookie say to her kids?
Chookie gets to decide what to say to her kids.

Yay! We agree on something.

What
*I* do with *MY* kids is promote the idea that we believe what
we believe, but we also recognize that we are fallible humans
who might not always get it 100 percent correct, so we take
a little dose of humility with our beliefs and lay off pushing
them on other people or criticizing other people's beliefs.

But do you teach them there's something out there that *would* know the answer?

If that's what I believe, sure. If that's not what I
believe, no. But if my beliefs are subject to fallibility, then
the existence or non-existence of something out there that
would know the answer is questionable at some level.

And while I don't get to tell others how to rear their children,
I think that is a good principle to teach and that were it more
widespread it would ease tensions in a multicultural society where
there is too much of people feeling free to lay into others'
beliefs...and for what? What's the use in causing hurt and
discord over beliefs that aren't really even provable in the
first place? If it's not provable, then pretty much by definition
you're not going to shake someone out of that belief with logic.

Not if they're not logical.

I'm done. Discuss this with someone who *has* a theology that they're actively
teaching their kids. In my view I'm the one leaving room in a little head for
some questioning.

What makes you think I haven't? Hell, what makes you
think *I* don't have a theology I'm actively teaching my kids?

Best wishes,
Ericka
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: introducing faith/religion to kids
    ... sense of apologists) for religion. ... as if I have some agenda to make sure the kids aren't shut down ... their unproven or unprovable beliefs are 100 percent true are ... little kid no body can be sure about what *I'm* even teaching, ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: SOT: Critical Thinking
    ... as I so inelegantly put it, by "trying to cram their beliefs down our ... I don't need my child being taught someone else's truth. ... don't think there was any teaching of religion in that statement. ... I happen to believe that "Theory X is based on religion, ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: vatican astronomer blasts creationism
    ... Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? ... you're teaching a course called science. ... There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science ... religion or philosophy. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: introducing faith/religion to kids
    ... it's an impossible story that isn't connected to a religion, ... Oh I have no problem with parents teaching their beliefs regarding religion to ... that religious kids are liars, which leads to all sorts of unpleasant ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... espouses such beliefs, and even among those denominations, there are many ... Now you're using a variant of the "not a True Christian" argument. ... compared to science and some other systems. ... religion or some other system can. ...
    (talk.origins)