Science and Theology, the sequel

04/11/2008 03:15:50 PM · #501

I think parents naturally teach their religion to their kids because they are much more caught up teaching morality and ethics. I don't even think Louis would disagree with the need to teach right and wrong to kids when they are young and impressionable. Naturally kids start asking "why" is this right or wrong and the simple answer, one at their level, is "God says so". That is the fundamental basis for morality and ethics to a religious family. So, Louis' idea to leave kids until they are able to make an informed decision is not a practical one in the raising of children. Naturally as kids get older and are capable of more thought the answer goes beyond "God says so".

Paul put it well when he said, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

04/11/2008 03:16:33 PM · #502

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Why is these skills so frequently ignored or deliberately avoided in the education of children? I would posit at least three reasons: 1) It's difficult and expensive to teach such skills effectively. 2) It necessarily undermines authority to one extent or another. And 3) it often results in children making evaluations against the beliefs of their teachers/parents/etc.

I disagree on all three counts:

1) It is neither difficult nor expensive to teach kids to think for themselves. How did you come to this belief? I try to teach my kids to understand the why behind decisions that are made.

2) How? If you are talking about questioning the concept that authority is to be followed blindly, then I can agree. An authority that cannot withstand critical scrutiny is not a real authority.

3) Such evaluations provide an opportunity for discussion between the parent and child. Both learn how the other reasons and thinks.

I think these skills are not encouraged/developed in children because the parents often lack these skills.

Nevermind, I should just read closer.... :)

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 15:17:02.

04/11/2008 03:16:47 PM · #503

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Why is these skills so frequently ignored or deliberately avoided in the education of children? I would posit at least three reasons: 1) It's difficult and expensive to teach such skills effectively. 2) It necessarily undermines authority to one extent or another. And 3) it often results in children making evaluations against the beliefs of their teachers/parents/etc.

I like the way you are posting. Reasoned and thought out. I agree with most of it, although I'll add a 4th. 4) Some things are considered beyond children to be taught or the application is beyond children to apply. We don't teach kids how to pick locks and then let them make their own decisions about whether or not they should use that information. Kids do not have the moral development to be able to make those judgements. It's just a simple example off the top of my head and I'm sure it isn't a perfect analogy.

Nor would you teach them vector calculus before addition.

04/11/2008 03:17:16 PM · #504

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Why is these skills so frequently ignored or deliberately avoided in the education of children? I would posit at least three reasons: 1) It's difficult and expensive to teach such skills effectively. 2) It necessarily undermines authority to one extent or another. And 3) it often results in children making evaluations against the beliefs of their teachers/parents/etc.

I disagree on all three counts:

1) It is neither difficult nor expensive to teach kids to think for themselves. How did you come to this belief? I try to teach my kids to understand the why behind decisions that are made.

2) How? If you are talking about questioning the concept that authority is to be followed blindly, then I can agree. An authority that cannot withstand critical scrutiny is not a real authority.

3) Such evaluations provide an opportunity for discussion between the parent and child. Both learn how the other reasons and thinks.

I think these skills are not encouraged/developed in children because the parents often lack these skills.

Do you have kids?

Yes.

04/11/2008 03:21:38 PM · #505

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Yes.

Ya, sorry, I should have caught that. Duh.

I do think it is VERY expensive to teach kids to think for themselves. Time is expensive and it takes lots of time. You can't just let them make all their own decisions because you run a risk of losing your kid altogether (to death). Because we raise so few offspring the cost of losing one is immense and we must guard as much as possible against that scenario. Raising "Free Range Kids" (I didn't go to Louis' link, but I do like the phrase) is perhaps too risky in the cost/benefit analysis.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 15:23:42.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/11/2008 03:22:27 PM · #506

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Naturally kids start asking "why" is this right or wrong and the simple answer, one at their level, is "God says so". That is the fundamental basis for morality and ethics to a religious family. So, Louis' idea to leave kids until they are able to make an informed decision is not a practical one in the raising of children.

Louis never suggested that you should wait to teach morality, but claiming that as the exclusive domain of religion is absurd. You could just as easily say, "Because it's against the law," "Because it's not nice," or simply "Because I said so."

04/11/2008 03:24:56 PM · #507

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Naturally kids start asking "why" is this right or wrong and the simple answer, one at their level, is "God says so". That is the fundamental basis for morality and ethics to a religious family. So, Louis' idea to leave kids until they are able to make an informed decision is not a practical one in the raising of children.

Louis never suggested that you should wait to teach morality, but claiming that as the exclusive domain of religion is absurd. You could just as easily say, "Because it's against the law," "Because it's not nice," or simply "Because I said so."

But obviously if you BELIEVE God is the basis for morality you are going to teach your kids that way. Why hide it from them simply because you might risk impressing upon them? I was just pointing out why it naturally happens. It's not likely as much parents consciously thinking "I need to teach these doctrines" but rather a natural outcropping of teaching right and wrong.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 15:25:55.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/11/2008 03:29:42 PM · #508

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But obviously if you BELIEVE God is the basis for morality you are going to teach your kids that way. Why hide it from them simply because you might risk impressing upon them?

You can believe whatever you want, but to a preschool kid YOU are a greater authority than God, and the lessons learned will simply be the ones you teach. The source of your own sense of morality was your parents and teachers... long before you could attribute it to a purported Biblical background.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 15:30:20.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

04/11/2008 03:35:23 PM · #509

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes.

Ya, sorry, I should have caught that. Duh.

I do think it is VERY expensive to teach kids to think for themselves. Time is expensive and it takes lots of time. You can't just let them make all their own decisions because you run a risk of losing your kid altogether (to death). Because we raise so few offspring the cost of losing one is immense and we must guard as much as possible against that scenario. Raising "Free Range Kids" (I didn't go to Louis' link, but I do like the phrase) is perhaps too risky in the cost/benefit analysis.

I'm not saying that you should let your kids simply do as they please. I'm saying you should teach them to think critically and not simply take everything they are given at face value. With that comes the lesson that decisions and the actions that follow in the path of those decisions have real and sometimes unpleasant consequences. You can give them an understanding of why they are not allowed to do X or Y and why the parent is the ultimate authority.

I think the best gift a parent can give their child is the skills to make good decisions, to have a healthy skepticism about the things they read, hear and see so that they can weigh their options.

What happens when a child who has never learned independent thought grows up and leaves the parental home? (They will leave one day, I hope) They can't decide for themselves because mommy and/or daddy aren't there to tell them what to do.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 15:38:24.

Canon EOS-60D

04/11/2008 03:36:08 PM · #510

Regarding kids and religious teaching...my three boys are all active in their respective Sunday School classes or youth groups at church. Even several years ago when my husband and I were not attending any church, my oldest son chose to go to Sunday School, not only because it was fun and something to do, but because he was curious about this "God" fellow and wanted to know more. I gladly put him on the church bus to a non-denominational church in our town, because I didn't want him specifically indoctrinated into any one particular denomination. He grew to love that church and the activities they had for kids in our area. As our family grew, the other two boys went along to Sunday School as well, on their own free will, even though we as the parents didn't attend. It was only in the last couple of years that we became active in church again, and we chose the church we belonged to because it was where the kids wanted to go, not vice versa.

Interestingly enough, the other day when my oldest had the state-mandated math achievement test at school, he had to bring a book to read when he finished testing. He chose to bring his Bible. He and I had a really great and mature conversation about the book of Revelations that afternoon after I picked him up...he had a lot of questions that I couldn't answer, but we decided it was best for him to ask his youth minister at church since I am no biblical scholar. I am amazed daily at how mature he is for his age (14) and how philosophical he can be regarding religion, his place in the world, and humanity. He is respectful of others' differences in all aspects and doesn't call them on whether or not they believe in God, the tooth fairy, or flying toasters. He knows his heart and his beliefs, and he prays for everyone. I wish I could be more like him.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

04/11/2008 03:42:02 PM · #511

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I disagree on all three counts:

1) It is neither difficult nor expensive to teach kids to think for themselves. How did you come to this belief? I try to teach my kids to understand the why behind decisions that are made.

2) How? If you are talking about questioning the concept that authority is to be followed blindly, then I can agree. An authority that cannot withstand critical scrutiny is not a real authority.

3) Such evaluations provide an opportunity for discussion between the parent and child. Both learn how the other reasons and thinks.

I think these skills are not encouraged/developed in children because the parents often lack these skills.

As to 1 re expensive - I was thinking specifically of a formal education context. To teach critical thinking you have to have a base of teachers that are well versed in critical thinking (not taught, or not taught well in most educational contexts). Creating and attracting this base of teachers would be quite expensive. Teaching critical thinking skills is also more expensive than rote memorization or other non-critical methods because it requires a dialectic between the student and the teacher, a situation that is much more difficult to control and that takes longer to produce results.

As to 1 re difficult - The very fact that the children's' parents tend to lack these skills (because they were either never taught or actively discouraged) is one of the reasons for the difficulty. We do not live in a society that actively encourages critical thinking. Think of the current flavors of advertising and marketing, political discourse, and yes, religious indoctrination (especially, I would argue the current mode and methods of the U.S. brand of Christian evangelism). Basically, to teach critical thinking you have to teach the child to swim against the current.

As to 2 - I would agree with you that an authority that cannot stand scrutiny should not be considered to be a true authority, but the overwhelming tendency of authority is to seek to shield itself from that scrutiny. Critical thinking skills necessarily undermine the absolute nature of authority because such skills demand that the authority provide reasons for its authority beyond the fact that it is the authority.

As to 3 - That would be great if it was the norm that such disagreements were taken to be the learning opportunities that you espouse. I don't question that you take them as such, as I've basically credited Doc for as well. However, I don't think that this response is the norm. Parent certainly want the best for their children, but what is best is often defined by what they believe is best and are fearful of disagreement and contradiction. Again, I applaud you and Doc's apparent openness to such situations in your children's lives, but I maintain that this is not the norm.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 15:45:34.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/11/2008 03:42:44 PM · #512

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I'm saying you should teach them to think critically and not simply take everything they are given at face value.

I think that's the best kind of parenting. Raise people who can think for themselves, who can apply critical thought to their observations of others and their environment, and who question authority (not simply for the sake of it, but as a tool when it's necessary). I think that's what "free range kids" is all about.

In relation to this, I'd be interested in hearing DrAchoo's or any other believer's response to the question, What would you do if your kid declared his/her atheism at about age 16? I suppose the question can be turned around on the atheists, but I'm interested in the believer's response, if anyone cares to bite.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/11/2008 03:53:13 PM · #513

Originally posted by Louis:

In relation to this, I'd be interested in hearing DrAchoo's or any other believer's response to the question, What would you do if your kid declared his/her atheism at about age 16? I suppose the question can be turned around on the atheists, but I'm interested in the believer's response, if anyone cares to bite.

I would do as much as possible to convince him otherwise. If I didn't I wouldn't be consistent with my beliefs. If I've spend Goodness knows how long on this thread talking with four people I've never met, I'm sure as heck gonna do that for my son.

I would think, given you answer to #7 on the questions above you would do the same. Here's your answer about whether it was worth spreading the word about atheism:
"Yes, to help borderline believers see that abandoning whatever is left of their belief has a very positive effect on one's life. Yes, so long as the opposite -- religion -- is used to manacle people and entire societies, or so long as religion is used as a weapon, or so long as religion is not a private affair that nurtures one's relationship with other people, but remains a public nuisance that intrudes in ways small and large on people who don't want to be intruded on."

Flash

Nikon D700

04/11/2008 03:59:36 PM · #514

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Is this the norm? [I hope so]. Would you guesstimate that the majority of parents feel this way? [I would hope so here as well].

To me, this is part and parcel to the responsibility of being a parent in the first place. One of my many critiques of some societal failures is the lack of this very education. Parents should have to pass a test qualifying them to raise children, proving they have the "mind set" to teach this level of personal responsibility.

Earlier I posted a link gang choice and somehow I do not think this child will get the kind of education that Spazmo99 feels is curcial.

edit to add Is this child better off for have been raised in this enviornment or would a "christian" upbringing be worse?

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 16:08:04.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/11/2008 04:13:38 PM · #515

Originally posted by Flash:

Parents should have to pass a test qualifying them to raise children, proving they have the "mind set" to teach this level of personal responsibility.

I know you never answer this, but I live in hope. How are you going to enforce that test ? What happens when they fail the test ?

04/11/2008 04:20:49 PM · #516

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not saying that you should let your kids simply do as they please. I'm saying you should teach them to think critically and not simply take everything they are given at face value. With that comes the lesson that decisions and the actions that follow in the path of those decisions have real and sometimes unpleasant consequences. You can give them an understanding of why they are not allowed to do X or Y and why the parent is the ultimate authority.

I think the best gift a parent can give their child is the skills to make good decisions,...

Is this the norm? [I hope so]. Would you guesstimate that the majority of parents feel this way? [I would hope so here as well].

To me, this is part and parcel to the responsibility of being a parent in the first place. One of my many critiques of some societal failures is the lack of this very education. Parents should have to pass a test qualifying them to raise children, proving they have the "mind set" to teach this level of personal responsibility.

Earlier I posted a link gang choice and somehow I do not think this child will get the kind of education that Spazmo99 feels is curcial.

edit to add Is this child better off for have been raised in this enviornment or would a "christian" upbringing be worse?

Unfortunately, I think all to many parents are "Helicopter Parents" that insulate their children from the "burden" of critical thinking and decision making. These are the kids whose parent call their college professors to ask about their grades.

As to which would be worse, I think that a "Christian" upbringing would be fine, provided that the child is allowed and even encouraged to be the kid in bible study who asks "why?" over and over.

04/11/2008 04:36:41 PM · #517

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

[quote=Spazmo99]I disagree on all three counts:

1) It is neither difficult nor expensive to teach kids to think for themselves. How did you come to this belief? I try to teach my kids to understand the why behind decisions that are made.

2) How? If you are talking about questioning the concept that authority is to be followed blindly, then I can agree. An authority that cannot withstand critical scrutiny is not a real authority.

3) Such evaluations provide an opportunity for discussion between the parent and child. Both learn how the other reasons and thinks.

I think these skills are not encouraged/developed in children because the parents often lack these skills.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Maybe, but my experience with the public school here is contrary to your view. Indeed, my son's 1st grade teacher told me that ultimately, my son's decision on how he behaves is his own.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

As to 1 re difficult - The very fact that the children's' parents tend to lack these skills (because they were either never taught or actively discouraged) is one of the reasons for the difficulty. We do not live in a society that actively encourages critical thinking. Think of the current flavors of advertising and marketing, political discourse, and yes, religious indoctrination (especially, I would argue the current mode and methods of the U.S. brand of Christian evangelism). Basically, to teach critical thinking you have to teach the child to swim against the current.

I don't think you have to teach them to always swim upstream, but rather give them the willingness and the strength to do so.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

As to 2 - I would agree with you that an authority that cannot stand scrutiny should not be considered to be a true authority, but the overwhelming tendency of authority is to seek to shield itself from that scrutiny. Critical thinking skills necessarily undermine the absolute nature of authority because such skills demand that the authority provide reasons for its authority beyond the fact that it is the authority.

Again, true. However, teaching your kids that, for example, while you may have to sit still while a police officer does something wrong since he has authority, there are ways to make that officer accountable. It also drives a discussion about how those in authority are people and can make bad decisions as well.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

As to 3 - That would be great if it was the norm that such disagreements were taken to be the learning opportunities that you espouse. I don't question that you take them as such, as I've basically credited Doc for as well. However, I don't think that this response is the norm. Parent certainly want the best for their children, but what is best is often defined by what they believe is best and are fearful of disagreement and contradiction. Again, I applaud you and Doc's apparent openness to such situations in your children's lives, but I maintain that this is not the norm.

I think that some parents are lazy and take the easy path. Certainly having the discussion on why something is or is not OK requires more effort than simply plopping the kids in front of the TV and turning on Power Rangers. The benefit is that rather than having to punish some undesired behavior, I can reason with my kids and get them to understand why and generally get them to go along.

04/11/2008 05:37:38 PM · #518

Originally posted by Matthew:

when you talk about there being a god, do you think of that god as being literal interventionist in an observable fashion (eg parting the waters of the red sea, creating sound waves in the form of human speech whilst taking the form of a burning bush, taking the form of liquid gold in order to impregnate a virginal princess), or is he more of an invisible influence (giving you confidence, comfort, inner peace, etc?)?

It seems to me that claims of an interventionist god fall into the realm of a god that is observable and could be proven by the application of scientific enquiry.

If god is not interventionist, then he is totally undetectable and the matter is purely philosophical. A great subject for debate, but not one for scientific enquiry.

The problem that I have is that all of the personal testimony is of god operating in a non-interventionist manner. However, I seem to be asked to believe in an interventionist god *without* the expectation that it should be capable of being tested.

I would be v interested in any response to this question ~ time zones are not working well for me in the debate!

04/11/2008 05:39:36 PM · #519

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Flash:
1. I really like a good steak. (actually med rare Prime Rib is #1)

1. Make mine a ribeye and then we can talk :)

I don't get this - when you know that a major world religion views this animal as holy, why take the chance of eternal damnation by eating it?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/11/2008 05:53:14 PM · #520

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Likewise if life evolved almost immediately after the earth cooled enough we should understand the simple and straightforward process in which it happened.

Life took a billion years to appear - that is not an inconsiderable time. And then three billion years to get from single celled algae to multicelled organisms.

By way of comparison, in 8 billion years after the big bang almost every atom of the earth was formed in the nuclear fission of many stars that had time to form, die, and explode, each casting the raw materials of the planet into empty space eventually to coalesce around the sun in the form we now know.

The timescales are too immense to contemplate.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

04/11/2008 06:25:19 PM · #521

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Flash:
1. I really like a good steak. (actually med rare Prime Rib is #1)

1. Make mine a ribeye and then we can talk :)

I don't get this - when you know that a major world religion views this animal as holy, why take the chance of eternal damnation by eating it?

So, are you a Fruitarian?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/11/2008 06:52:52 PM · #522

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Flash:
1. I really like a good steak. (actually med rare Prime Rib is #1)

1. Make mine a ribeye and then we can talk :)

I don't get this - when you know that a major world religion views this animal as holy, why take the chance of eternal damnation by eating it?

So, are you a Fruitarian?

No an atheist - as a consequence I can eat anything without worrying for my eternal soul.

My point is that if you believe in god, why would you take the chance on something central to a major world religion (akin to Pascal's wager)?

eqsite

Nikon D7100

04/11/2008 06:54:49 PM · #523

Originally posted by Matthew:

Then I guess your response was directed at Flash, since although I haven't directly placed myself in a camp, I think it's pretty obvious which team I'm swinging for.